Agenda — Marina City Council, July 1, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 153
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
15: SR 1 Northbound Ramp & Reservation Rd AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 73 180 0 0 289 340 57 0 156 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 73 180 0 0 289 340 57 0 156 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 194 0 0 311 366 61 0 168
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 159 1059 0 0 689 580 388 0 345
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.22 0.00 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 0 0 1870 1574 1781 0 1583
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 194 0 0 311 366 61 0 168
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 0 0 1870 1574 1781 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 4.7 7.1 1.0 0.0 3.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 4.7 7.1 1.0 0.0 3.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 159 1059 0 0 689 580 388 0 345
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.63 0.16 0.00 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 577 4241 0 0 3433 2890 1827 0 1624 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh16.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 8.9 9.6 11.7 0.0 12.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.0 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.3 0.0 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 18.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 10.8 11.9 0.0 13.7 LnGrp LOS B A A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 272 677 229
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.1 10.1 13.2
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.1 25.0 7.3 17.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 84.0 12.0 68.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 3.9 3.5 9.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 1.2 0.1 3.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 10.3
HCM 7th LOS B
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 154
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
16: Salinas Ave & Reservation Rd AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 971 11 25 795 0 3 0 20 0 0 1
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 971 11 25 795 0 3 0 20 0 0 1
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 1142 13 29 935 0 4 0 24 0 0 1
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 87 1841 835 73 2363 0 113 18 196 0 0 228
Arrive On Green 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.04 0.66 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3486 1582 1781 3647 0 100 127 1365 0 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 613 530 13 29 935 0 28 0 0 0 0 1
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1870 1617 1582 1781 1777 0 1592 0 0 0 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 9.6 0.2 0.7 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 9.6 0.2 0.7 5.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.14 0.86 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1074 854 835 73 2363 0 327 0 0 0 0 228 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.62 0.02 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3302 2787 2727 384 7230 0 1484 0 0 0 0 1404 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.9 6.9 4.7 19.5 3.2 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.7 0.0 3.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.5 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.4 7.7 4.7 23.0 3.3 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 LnGrp LOS A A A C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1156 964 28 1
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.5 3.9 15.7 15.3
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 5.7 26.1 10.0 31.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.0 9.0 72.0 37.0 85.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 2.7 11.6 2.0 7.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 10.4 0.0 8.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.0
HCM 7th LOS A
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 155
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
18: Driveway/Cardoza Ave & Reservation Rd AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 39 289 7 6 432 23 7 0 19 77 0 159 Future Volume (veh/h) 39 289 7 6 432 23 7 0 19 77 0 159 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 307 7 6 460 24 7 0 20 82 0 169
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 101 1507 656 17 706 596 172 48 247 513 0 337 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.42 0.42 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1546 1781 1870 1579 181 223 1154 1387 0 1578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 307 7 6 460 24 27 0 0 82 0 169
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1546 1781 1870 1579 1558 0 0 1387 0 1578 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 1.9 0.1 0.1 6.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 1.9 0.1 0.1 6.9 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 1507 656 17 706 596 466 0 0 513 0 337 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.20 0.01 0.35 0.65 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 680 7308 3180 471 3627 3061 1831 0 0 1805 0 1808 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh15.5 6.2 5.7 16.7 8.8 6.7 10.7 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.1 0.0 11.5 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 18.1 6.2 5.7 28.2 9.8 6.7 10.8 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 12.9 LnGrp LOS B A A C A A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 355 490 27 251
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 9.9 10.8 12.4
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 4.3 18.4 11.3 5.9 16.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.0 9.0 70.0 39.0 13.0 66.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.4 2.1 3.9 5.2 2.8 8.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 2.3 1.4 0.0 3.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 9.7
HCM 7th LOS A
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 156
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
8: 4th St & Inter-Garrison Rd AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 148 57 146 691 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 148 57 146 691 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.96 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1779 1845
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.90
Satd. Flow (perm) 1779 1681
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 157 61 155 735 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 15 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 203 0 0 890 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 7 12 2
Turn Type NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.0 29.0
Effective Green, g (s) 29.0 29.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.67 0.67
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1194 1128
v/s Ratio Prot 0.11
v/s Ratio Perm c0.53
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.79
Uniform Delay, d1 2.6 5.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 3.7
Delay (s) 2.7 8.7
Level of Service A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 2.7 8.7 0.0
Approach LOS A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 43.2 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 157
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
17: Imjin Rd & Imjin Pkwy AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 742 213 1263 1524 56 121
Future Volume (vph) 742 213 1263 1524 56 121
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.91
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 3254 1441
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1770 3539 3254 1441
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow (vph) 789 227 1344 1621 60 129
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 133 0 0 60 59
Lane Group Flow (vph) 789 94 1344 1621 65 5
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 4 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 29.5 29.5 46.3 79.8 7.5 7.5
Effective Green, g (s) 29.5 29.5 46.3 79.8 7.5 7.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.49 0.84 0.08 0.08
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1095 490 859 2963 256 113
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 c0.76 0.46
v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 c0.02 0.00
v/c Ratio 0.72 0.19 1.56 0.55 0.25 0.04
Uniform Delay, d1 29.2 24.1 24.5 2.3 41.3 40.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 0.2 259.8 0.2 0.5 0.2
Delay (s) 31.6 24.3 284.3 2.5 41.8 40.8
Level of Service C C F A D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 30.0 130.2 41.4
Approach LOS C F D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 101.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.15
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 95.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 105.5% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 158

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [California Dr/5th Ave & 8th St (Site Folder: Future 2045 With Improvements AM)]
Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: 5th Ave
3 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.010 2.8 LOS A 0.0 1.0 0.08 0.02 0.08 33.7 8 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.010 2.8 LOS A 0.0 1.0 0.08 0.02 0.08 34.4 18 R2 All MCs 10 2.0 10 2.0 0.010 2.8 LOS A 0.0 1.0 0.08 0.02 0.08 34.1 Approach 13 2.0 13 2.0 0.010 2.8 LOS A 0.0 1.0 0.08 0.02 0.08 34.1 East: 8th St
1 L2 All MCs 4 2.0 4 2.0 0.217 3.9 LOS A 1.1 29.0 0.04 0.01 0.04 33.3 6 T1 All MCs 268 2.0 268 2.0 0.217 3.9 LOS A 1.1 29.0 0.04 0.01 0.04 34.0 16 R2 All MCs 22 2.0 22 2.0 0.217 3.9 LOS A 1.1 29.0 0.04 0.01 0.04 33.7 Approach 294 2.0 294 2.0 0.217 3.9 LOS A 1.1 29.0 0.04 0.01 0.04 33.9 North: California Dr
7 L2 All MCs 16 2.0 16 2.0 0.018 3.7 LOS A 0.1 1.8 0.39 0.22 0.39 31.6 4 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.018 3.7 LOS A 0.1 1.8 0.39 0.22 0.39 32.2 14 R2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.018 3.7 LOS A 0.1 1.8 0.39 0.22 0.39 32.0 Approach 18 2.0 18 2.0 0.018 3.7 LOS A 0.1 1.8 0.39 0.22 0.39 31.7 West: 8th St
5 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.003 2.7 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.09 0.02 0.09 33.2 2 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.003 2.7 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.09 0.02 0.09 33.8 12 R2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.003 2.7 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.09 0.02 0.09 33.6 Approach 4 2.0 4 2.0 0.003 2.7 LOS A 0.0 0.3 0.09 0.02 0.09 33.5 All Vehicles 329 2.0 329 2.0 0.217 3.8 LOS A 1.1 29.0 0.06 0.02 0.06 33.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches an d intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Const raint
effects.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Del Monte Blvd & Beach Rd (Site Folder: Future 2045 With Improvements AM)]
Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Del Monte Blvd
3 L2 All MCs 165 2.0 165 2.0 0.244 5.5 LOS A 1.1 28.1 0.40 0.25 0.40 31.4 8 T1 All MCs 308 2.0 308 2.0 0.244 5.5 LOS A 1.1 28.1 0.40 0.25 0.40 32.7 18 R2 All MCs 67 2.0 67 2.0 0.244 5.5 LOS A 1.1 28.1 0.40 0.25 0.40 32.8 Approach 540 2.0 540 2.0 0.244 5.5 LOS A 1.1 28.1 0.40 0.25 0.40 32.3 East: Beach Rd
1 L2 All MCs 180 2.0 180 2.0 0.361 8.3 LOS A 1.6 40.5 0.59 0.49 0.61 30.2 6 T1 All MCs 79 2.0 79 2.0 0.361 8.3 LOS A 1.6 40.5 0.59 0.49 0.61 30.8 16 R2 All MCs 52 2.0 52 2.0 0.361 8.3 LOS A 1.6 40.5 0.59 0.49 0.61 30.5 Approach 311 2.0 311 2.0 0.361 8.3 LOS A 1.6 40.5 0.59 0.49 0.61 30.4 North: Del Monte Blvd
7 L2 All MCs 96 2.0 96 2.0 0.636 13.4 LOS B 6.6 167.4 0.76 0.75 1.22 29.0 4 T1 All MCs 998 2.0 998 2.0 0.636 13.4 LOS B 6.6 167.4 0.76 0.75 1.22 29.6 14 R2 All MCs 87 2.0 87 2.0 0.636 13.4 LOS B 6.6 167.4 0.76 0.75 1.22 29.5 Approach 1181 2.0 1181 2.0 0.636 13.4 LOS B 6.6 167.4 0.76 0.75 1.22 29.5 West: Beach Rd
5 L2 All MCs 62 2.0 62 2.0 0.373 16.6 LOS C 1.4 35.4 0.79 0.84 0.99 27.4 2 T1 All MCs 81 2.0 81 2.0 0.373 16.6 LOS C 1.4 35.4 0.79 0.84 0.99 27.9 12 R2 All MCs 249 2.0 249 2.0 0.570 21.2 LOS C 2.6 65.9 0.82 0.94 1.26 26.6 Approach 393 2.0 393 2.0 0.570 19.5 LOS C 2.6 65.9 0.81 0.91 1.16 27.0 All Vehicles 2425 2.0 2425 2.0 0.636 12.0 LOS B 6.6 167.4 0.67 0.63 0.95 29.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches an d intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Const raint
effects.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Imjin Rd & 8th St (Site Folder: Future 2045 With Improvements AM)]
Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Driveway
3 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.052 6.6 LOS A 0.2 4.8 0.61 0.56 0.61 32.0 8 T1 All MCs 20 2.0 20 2.0 0.052 6.6 LOS A 0.2 4.8 0.61 0.56 0.61 32.6 18 R2 All MCs 10 2.0 10 2.0 0.052 6.6 LOS A 0.2 4.8 0.61 0.56 0.61 32.4 Approach 31 2.0 31 2.0 0.052 6.6 LOS A 0.2 4.8 0.61 0.56 0.61 32.5 East: 8th St
1 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.055 3.5 LOS A 0.2 6.0 0.26 0.13 0.26 33.6 6 T1 All MCs 39 2.0 39 2.0 0.055 3.5 LOS A 0.2 6.0 0.26 0.13 0.26 34.2 16 R2 All MCs 26 2.0 26 2.0 0.055 3.5 LOS A 0.2 6.0 0.26 0.13 0.26 33.9 Approach 66 2.0 66 2.0 0.055 3.5 LOS A 0.2 6.0 0.26 0.13 0.26 34.1 North: Imjin Rd
7 L2 All MCs 654 2.0 654 2.0 0.950 20.7 LOS C 43.2 1097.6 1.00 0.46 1.00 26.0 4 T1 All MCs 12 2.0 12 2.0 0.950 20.7 LOS C 43.2 1097.6 1.00 0.46 1.00 26.4 14 R2 All MCs 567 2.0 567 2.0 0.950 20.7 LOS C 43.2 1097.6 1.00 0.46 1.00 26.2 Approach 1232 2.0 1232 2.0 0.950 20.7 LOS C 43.2 1097.6 1.00 0.46 1.00 26.1 West: 8th St
5 L2 All MCs 104 2.0 104 2.0 0.171 7.3 LOS A 0.7 17.3 0.62 0.55 0.62 30.0 2 T1 All MCs 9 2.0 9 2.0 0.171 7.3 LOS A 0.7 17.3 0.62 0.55 0.62 30.5 12 R2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.171 7.3 LOS A 0.7 17.3 0.62 0.55 0.62 30.3 Approach 114 2.0 114 2.0 0.171 7.3 LOS A 0.7 17.3 0.62 0.55 0.62 30.1 All Vehicles 1443 2.0 1443 2.0 0.950 18.6 LOS C 43.2 1097.6 0.93 0.46 0.93 26.8 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches an d intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Const raint
effects.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.1 | Copyright © 2000- 2022 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC | Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise Level 2 | Processed: Monday, June 2, 2025 4:02:04 PM Project: \\kimley- horn.com\ca_pls1\Project\SJC_TPTO\City of Marina\097789003- Marina DIF\2025 Update\05 Design & Analysis\Sidra\Marina DIF 2025_v2.sip9
161
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
1: 2nd Ave & Inter-Garrison Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 63 0 101 0 259 27 73 294 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 63 0 101 0 259 27 73 294 0
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 0 64 0 103 0 264 28 74 300 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 6 6 5 268 0 346 6 932 98 164 1825 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.51 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1579 1781 3242 341 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 0 64 0 103 0 144 148 74 300 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1585 1781 0 1579 1781 1777 1806 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.3 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.9 1.9 1.2 1.3 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 6 6 5 268 0 346 6 511 519 164 1825 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.28 0.29 0.45 0.16 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 357 1751 1484 953 0 2006 357 2674 2718 1489 7605 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 9.8 0.0 8.3 8.3 12.9 3.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 10.2 0.0 8.6 8.6 14.8 3.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B A A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 0 167 292 374
Approach Delay, s/veh 0.0 10.8 8.6 6.1
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.8 12.6 8.5 2.1 0.0 19.4 0.0 10.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 45.0 16.0 28.0 6.0 64.0 6.0 38.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 3.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 7.9
HCM 7th LOS A
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 162
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
2: Driveway/Imjin Rd & 8th St PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th AWSC Page 2
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh17.7
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 144 44 0 0 486 0 130 0 10 9 80
Future Vol, veh/h 0 144 44 0 0 486 0 130 0 10 9 80
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 0 166 51 0 0 559 0 149 0 11 10 92
Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 1
Conflicting Approach LeftSB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2
HCM Control Delay, s/veh11.9 22.9 12.6 10.1

HCM LOS B C B B
Lane NBLn1EBLn1EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2SBLn1SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 53% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 100% 77% 100% 0% 47% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 0% 23% 0% 100% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 130 0 188 0 486 19 80
LT Vol 0 0 0 0 0 10 0
Through Vol 130 0 144 0 0 9 0
RT Vol 0 0 44 0 486 0 80
Lane Flow Rate 149 0 216 0 559 22 92
Geometry Grp 4b 5 5 5 5 5 5
Degree of Util (X) 0.284 0 0.355 0 0.776 0.044 0.158
Departure Headway (Hd) 6.832 6.078 5.912 5.709 5.002 7.172 6.188 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 524 0 605 0 721 497 577
Service Time 4.9 3.839 3.672 3.456 2.748 4.944 3.959
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.284 0 0.357 0 0.775 0.044 0.159
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 12.6 8.8 11.9 8.5 22.9 10.3 10.1 HCM Lane LOS B N B N C B B
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.2 0 1.6 0 7.5 0.1 0.6
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 163
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
3: 5th St/California Dr & 8th St PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th TWSC Page 3
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 0 0 12 0 1 0 9 0 21 4 9
Future Vol, veh/h 7 0 0 12 0 1 0 9 0 21 4 9
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - Free
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - 0 - 0
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 9 0 0 16 0 1 0 12 0 28 5 12
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 1 0 0 0 0 0 52 52 0
Stage 1 - - - - - - 19 19 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 33 33 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 6.42 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 5.42 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 5.42 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1621 - - - - - 957 839 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 1004 880 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 989 867 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1621 - - - - - 951 0 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 951 0 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 998 0 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 989 0 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v7.23

HCM LOS -
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Capacity (veh/h) - 1621 - - - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.006 - - - - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) - 7.2 - - - - -
HCM Lane LOS - A - - - - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - - - -
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 164
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
5: California Dr/California Ave & Imjin Pkwy PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 324 1867 0 13 1268 62 0 0 0 30 0 223 Future Volume (veh/h) 324 1867 0 13 1268 62 0 0 0 30 0 223 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 331 1905 0 13 1294 63 0 0 0 31 0 228 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 380 2359 1052 33 1667 741 2 173 0 65 329 279 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.66 0.00 0.02 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1580 1781 1870 0 1781 1870 1582 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 331 1905 0 13 1294 63 0 0 0 31 0 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1580 1781 1870 0 1781 1870 1582 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.2 33.0 0.0 0.6 25.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 11.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.2 33.0 0.0 0.6 25.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 11.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 380 2359 1052 33 1667 741 2 173 0 65 329 279 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.81 0.00 0.39 0.78 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 672 2849 1271 126 1760 782 126 750 0 126 750 634 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.2 10.3 0.0 41.1 18.8 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.1 0.0 33.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 1.5 0.0 7.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.9 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.0 10.9 0.0 0.3 10.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 4.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 38.5 11.8 0.0 48.5 20.9 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.3 0.0 39.5 LnGrp LOS D B D C B D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2236 1370 0 259
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.8 20.8 0.0 40.2
Approach LOS B C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 11.8 5.6 60.3 0.0 18.9 22.1 43.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 34.0 6.0 68.0 6.0 34.0 32.0 42.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 0.0 2.6 35.0 0.0 13.8 17.2 27.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.7 0.9 8.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 19.2
HCM 7th LOS B
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 165
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
6: California Ave & Reindollar Ave PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 44 36 58 21 28 60 183 126 40 162 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 44 36 58 21 28 60 183 126 40 162 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 48 40 64 23 31 66 201 138 44 178 44 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 260 226 144 385 141 107 234 384 232 228 524 115 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 271 848 540 601 527 402 158 939 567 141 1281 282 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 123 0 0 118 0 0 405 0 0 266 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1660 0 0 1529 0 0 1665 0 0 1704 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.28 0.33 0.54 0.26 0.16 0.34 0.17 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 630 0 0 633 0 0 851 0 0 867 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2656 0 0 2481 0 0 5656 0 0 5679 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.1 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.3 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A A A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 123 118 405 266
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.3 7.2 6.0 5.2
Approach LOS A A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 10.6 14.1 10.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 84.0 38.0 84.0 38.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 3.4 4.5 3.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.1 0.7 1.9 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.1
HCM 7th LOS A
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 166
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
9: 2nd Ave & Imjin Pkwy PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1810 457 343 1217 0 419 0 407 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1810 457 343 1217 0 419 0 407 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1885 476 357 1268 0 436 0 424 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2 1669 1306 380 2202 982 519 562 474 2 393 0 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.47 0.47 0.11 0.62 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 2781 3456 3554 1585 3456 1870 1579 1781 3647 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1885 476 357 1268 0 436 0 424 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1390 1728 1777 1585 1728 1870 1579 1781 1777 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 47.0 11.0 10.3 21.1 0.0 12.3 0.0 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 47.0 11.0 10.3 21.1 0.0 12.3 0.0 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2 1669 1306 380 2202 982 519 562 474 2 393 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.13 0.36 0.94 0.58 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 107 1669 1306 380 2202 982 656 935 789 107 1314 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 26.5 17.0 44.2 11.3 0.0 41.4 0.0 33.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 66.5 0.2 31.2 0.4 0.0 7.8 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 34.1 3.4 6.0 7.7 0.0 5.7 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 93.0 17.1 75.4 11.6 0.0 49.2 0.0 41.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS F B E B D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2361 1625 860 0
Approach Delay, s/veh 77.7 25.6 45.2 0.0
Approach LOS E C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s0.0 34.1 15.0 51.0 19.0 15.1 0.0 66.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.0 50.0 11.0 47.0 19.0 37.0 6.0 52.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s0.0 27.7 12.3 49.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 23.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 11.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 54.5
HCM 7th LOS D
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 167
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
10: Del Monte Blvd & Reservation Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 231 162 385 295 355 155 393 460 289 248 9 Future Volume (veh/h) 41 231 162 385 295 355 155 393 460 289 248 9 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 43 243 171 405 311 374 163 414 484 304 261 9 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 286 321 215 983 532 435 202 496 710 398 933 32 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.27 0.27 0.12 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 2002 1342 3456 1870 1529 1781 1870 2679 3456 3500 120 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 214 200 405 311 374 163 414 484 304 132 138 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1567 1728 1870 1529 1781 1870 1340 1728 1777 1843 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 10.6 11.2 8.7 13.1 21.2 8.2 19.1 14.9 7.8 5.4 5.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 10.6 11.2 8.7 13.1 21.2 8.2 19.1 14.9 7.8 5.4 5.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 286 285 252 983 532 435 202 496 710 398 474 492 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.75 0.79 0.41 0.58 0.86 0.81 0.84 0.68 0.76 0.28 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 389 388 342 1131 612 501 583 612 877 754 776 804 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh33.1 36.7 37.0 26.6 28.1 31.0 39.6 31.8 30.2 39.3 26.6 26.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 5.4 8.7 0.3 1.1 12.7 7.3 8.2 1.6 3.1 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.8 4.9 4.8 3.6 5.9 9.1 3.9 9.4 4.8 3.4 2.3 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 33.3 42.1 45.7 26.8 29.2 43.8 47.0 40.0 31.8 42.4 26.9 26.9 LnGrp LOS C D D C C D D D C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 457 1090 1061 574
Approach Delay, s/veh 42.9 33.3 37.3 35.1
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s14.6 28.3 18.7 14.4 28.4 30.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 30.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.8 21.1 13.2 10.2 7.4 23.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 3.1 1.5 0.4 1.5 2.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 36.4
HCM 7th LOS D
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 168
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
11: Reservation Rd & Blanco Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 8
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1200 1431 761 55 86 1129
Future Volume (veh/h) 1200 1431 761 55 86 1129
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1263 1506 801 58 91 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1352 3057 803 680 207
Arrive On Green 0.39 0.86 0.43 0.43 0.06 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 1870 1585 3456 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1263 1506 801 58 91 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1870 1585 1728 1395
Q Serve(g_s), s 35.1 10.3 42.8 2.2 2.5 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 35.1 10.3 42.8 2.2 2.5 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h1352 3057 803 680 207
V/C Ratio(X) 0.93 0.49 1.00 0.09 0.44
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1414 3121 803 680 1173
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh29.3 1.7 28.6 16.9 45.5 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.4 0.1 31.2 0.1 1.5 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln16.2 1.3 25.2 0.8 1.1 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 40.6 1.8 59.8 17.0 46.9 0.0
LnGrp LOS D A E B D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2769 859 91
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.5 56.9 46.9
Approach LOS B E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 90.2 10.0 43.2 47.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 88.0 34.0 41.0 43.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 4.5 37.1 44.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 19.9 0.3 2.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 28.8
HCM 7th LOS C
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 169
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
12: California Ave & Marina Heights Dr PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 9
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 59 332 56 62 199
Future Volume (veh/h) 46 59 332 56 62 199
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On ApproachNo No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 63 353 60 66 212
Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 352 313 605 499 150 1009
Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.08 0.54
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1543 1781 1870
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 63 353 60 66 212
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1870 1543 1781 1870
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.7 1.0 4.8 0.8 1.1 1.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.7 1.0 4.8 0.8 1.1 1.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 352 313 605 499 150 1009
V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.20 0.58 0.12 0.44 0.21
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1875 1668 4060 3348 1172 5537
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh10.1 10.2 8.6 7.2 13.2 3.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.1 2.0 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.2 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 10.3 10.5 9.5 7.3 15.2 3.7
LnGrp LOS B B A A B A
Approach Vol, veh/h 112 413 278
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 9.2 6.5
Approach LOS B A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.6 13.8 20.4 10.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 66.0 90.0 32.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.1 6.8 3.8 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.6 1.4 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 8.4
HCM 7th LOS A
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 170
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
13: General Jim Moore Blvd/4th Ave & Divarty St PM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 12 10 33 15 131 18 439 23 12 116 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 13 12 10 33 15 131 18 439 23 12 116 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 16 15 12 41 19 164 22 549 29 15 145 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 225 193 114 148 62 284 58 754 40 41 713 59
Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.43 0.43 0.02 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 408 768 455 168 246 1133 1781 1758 93 1781 1700 141 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 43 0 0 224 0 0 22 0 578 15 0 157
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1632 0 0 1548 0 0 1781 0 1851 1781 0 1840 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 10.5 0.3 0.0 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 10.5 0.3 0.0 2.2 Prop In Lane 0.37 0.28 0.18 0.73 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.08
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 532 0 0 494 0 0 58 0 794 41 0 772 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.73 0.37 0.00 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2206 0 0 2212 0 0 573 0 2383 441 0 2233 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh11.6 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 9.6 19.4 0.0 7.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 1.3 5.4 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 11.7 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 23.2 0.0 10.9 24.8 0.0 7.6 LnGrp LOS B B C B C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 43 224 600 172
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.7 13.8 11.3 9.1
Approach LOS B B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.9 21.3 14.1 5.3 20.9 14.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s10.0 52.0 56.0 13.0 49.0 56.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.3 12.5 2.8 2.5 4.2 7.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.5
HCM 7th LOS B
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 171
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
14: SR 1 Southbound Ramp & Reservation Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 103 32 231 95 0 0 0 0 457 0 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 103 32 231 95 0 0 0 0 457 0 55
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 127 40 285 117 0 564 0 68
Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 200 63 358 783 0 688 0 83
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.42 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1362 429 1781 1870 0 1569 0 189
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 167 285 117 0 632 0 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 0 1791 1781 1870 0 1758 0 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 4.9 8.5 2.2 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 4.9 8.5 2.2 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.24 1.00 0.00 0.89 0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 0 263 358 783 0 771 0 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.80 0.15 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 0 1087 1208 2536 0 1442 0 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 22.5 21.3 10.1 0.0 13.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 2.5 4.1 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.0 2.1 3.7 0.8 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.4 10.2 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 167 402 632
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 21.0 16.0
Approach LOS C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 3 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.3 12.2 28.6 27.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 38.0 34.0 46.0 76.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.5 6.9 19.7 4.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.9 4.9 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 18.9
HCM 7th LOS B
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 172
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
15: SR 1 Northbound Ramp & Reservation Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 67 485 0 0 337 387 44 0 326 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 67 485 0 0 337 387 44 0 326 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 0 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 495 0 0 344 395 45 0 333
Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 139 1001 0 0 678 573 491 0 437
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.00 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 0 0 1870 1581 1781 0 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 68 495 0 0 344 395 45 0 333
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 0 0 1870 1581 1781 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 9.0 0.8 0.0 8.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 9.0 0.8 0.0 8.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 139 1001 0 0 678 573 491 0 437
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.69 0.09 0.00 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 464 3010 0 0 2346 1983 2276 0 2026 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh18.7 6.2 0.0 0.0 10.5 11.4 11.4 0.0 14.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.5 0.1 0.0 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.7 0.3 0.0 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 21.3 6.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 12.9 11.5 0.0 16.8 LnGrp LOS C A B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 563 739 378
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 12.1 16.2
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.6 26.6 7.3 19.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 54.0 68.0 11.0 53.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.1 9.1 3.5 11.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.5 3.7 0.1 3.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 11.8
HCM 7th LOS B
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 173
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
16: Salinas Ave & Reservation Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 808 13 20 999 0 8 0 27 0 0 5
Future Volume (veh/h) 1 808 13 20 999 0 8 0 27 0 0 5
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1 842 14 21 1041 0 8 0 28 0 0 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 107 1517 689 57 2081 0 160 33 220 0 0 282
Arrive On Green 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.59 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1 3485 1583 1781 3647 0 168 186 1239 0 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 452 391 14 21 1041 0 36 0 0 0 0 5
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1869 1617 1583 1781 1777 0 1593 0 0 0 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.1 0.2 0.4 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 6.1 0.2 0.4 5.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.22 0.78 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 920 704 689 57 2081 0 413 0 0 0 0 282 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.56 0.02 0.37 0.50 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 4075 3446 3375 475 8942 0 1829 0 0 0 0 1736 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.1 7.1 5.4 16.0 4.1 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.7 0.0 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.5 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 7.5 7.8 5.4 20.0 4.3 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 LnGrp LOS A A A C A B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 857 1062 36 5
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 4.6 11.8 11.5
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 5.1 18.7 10.0 23.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 37.0 9.0 72.0 37.0 85.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 2.4 8.1 2.1 7.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 6.6 0.0 10.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 6.1
HCM 7th LOS A
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 174
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
18: Driveway/Cardoza Ave & Reservation Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 7th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 102 646 17 16 646 81 10 1 11 58 1 67 Future Volume (veh/h) 102 646 17 16 646 81 10 1 11 58 1 67 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Width Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 103 653 17 16 653 82 10 1 11 59 1 68 Peak Hour Factor 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 174 1985 876 43 907 759 184 46 112 370 3 226 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.56 0.56 0.02 0.49 0.49 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1568 1781 1870 1565 452 321 773 1400 23 1562 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 103 653 17 16 653 82 22 0 0 59 0 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1568 1781 1870 1565 1546 0 0 1400 0 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 4.4 0.2 0.4 12.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 4.4 0.2 0.4 12.2 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.50 1.00 0.99
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 174 1985 876 43 907 759 343 0 0 370 0 229 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.33 0.02 0.37 0.72 0.11 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 769 5731 2529 324 2549 2133 1429 0 0 1408 0 1404 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh19.0 5.3 4.3 21.1 9.0 6.2 16.3 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 16.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.2 0.1 0.0 5.2 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3), s/veh0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 3.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d), s/veh 22.2 5.4 4.3 26.4 10.1 6.2 16.4 0.0 0.0 16.9 0.0 17.6 LnGrp LOS C A A C B A B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 773 751 22 128
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.6 10.0 16.4 17.3
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 5.1 28.6 10.4 8.3 25.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 39.0 8.0 71.0 39.0 19.0 60.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.5 2.4 6.4 3.7 4.4 14.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 5.4 0.6 0.2 5.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 7th Control Delay, s/veh 9.5
HCM 7th LOS A
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 175
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
8: 4th St & Inter-Garrison Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 644 56 60 165 0 0
Future Volume (vph) 644 56 60 165 0 0
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.99 1.00
Flt Protected 1.00 0.99
Satd. Flow (prot) 1837 1836
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.76
Satd. Flow (perm) 1837 1412
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 716 62 67 183 0 0
RTOR Reduction (vph) 4 0 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 774 0 0 250 0 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 21 21 19 5
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8
Permitted Phases 8
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.3 20.3
Effective Green, g (s) 20.3 20.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.59 0.59
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1084 833
v/s Ratio Prot c0.42
v/s Ratio Perm 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.71 0.30
Uniform Delay, d1 5.0 3.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 0.2
Delay (s) 7.2 3.7
Level of Service A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 7.2 3.7 0.0
Approach LOS A A A
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 6.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 34.4 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 176
Marina DIF - 2023 Update Plus Project Conditions
17: Imjin Rd & Imjin Pkwy PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 1810 62 166 1090 187 442
Future Volume (vph) 1810 62 166 1090 187 442
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97 0.91
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.85
Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1583 1770 3539 3241 1441
Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1583 1770 3539 3241 1441
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 1946 67 178 1172 201 475
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 161 161
Lane Group Flow (vph) 1946 54 178 1172 278 76
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2
Turn Type NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 4 2 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 66.9 66.9 13.6 85.0 16.5 16.5
Effective Green, g (s) 66.9 66.9 13.6 85.0 16.5 16.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.61 0.61 0.12 0.77 0.15 0.15
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2142 958 217 2722 483 215
v/s Ratio Prot c0.55 c0.10 0.33
v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.09 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.91 0.06 0.82 0.43 0.58 0.35
Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 8.9 47.3 4.4 43.7 42.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 6.1 0.0 21.3 0.1 1.7 1.0
Delay (s) 25.2 8.9 68.6 4.5 45.4 43.2
Level of Service C A E A D D
Approach Delay (s/veh) 24.7 13.0 44.6
Approach LOS C B D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay (s/veh) 24.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.84
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.5 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. 177

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [California Dr/5th Ave & 8th St (Site Folder: Future 2045 With Improvements PM)]
Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: 5th Ave
3 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.011 2.8 LOS A 0.0 1.2 0.13 0.03 0.13 33.7 8 T1 All MCs 12 2.0 12 2.0 0.011 2.8 LOS A 0.0 1.2 0.13 0.03 0.13 34.3 18 R2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.011 2.8 LOS A 0.0 1.2 0.13 0.03 0.13 34.1 Approach 15 2.0 15 2.0 0.011 2.8 LOS A 0.0 1.2 0.13 0.03 0.13 34.2 East: 8th St
1 L2 All MCs 16 2.0 16 2.0 0.014 2.8 LOS A 0.1 1.5 0.09 0.02 0.09 32.0 6 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.014 2.8 LOS A 0.1 1.5 0.09 0.02 0.09 32.6 16 R2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.014 2.8 LOS A 0.1 1.5 0.09 0.02 0.09 32.4 Approach 19 2.0 19 2.0 0.014 2.8 LOS A 0.1 1.5 0.09 0.02 0.09 32.1 North: California Dr
7 L2 All MCs 28 2.0 28 2.0 0.034 2.9 LOS A 0.1 3.7 0.09 0.02 0.09 32.5 4 T1 All MCs 5 2.0 5 2.0 0.034 2.9 LOS A 0.1 3.7 0.09 0.02 0.09 33.1 14 R2 All MCs 12 2.0 12 2.0 0.034 2.9 LOS A 0.1 3.7 0.09 0.02 0.09 32.8 Approach 45 2.0 45 2.0 0.034 2.9 LOS A 0.1 3.7 0.09 0.02 0.09 32.6 West: 8th St
5 L2 All MCs 9 2.0 9 2.0 0.009 2.9 LOS A 0.0 1.0 0.15 0.04 0.15 32.2 2 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.009 2.9 LOS A 0.0 1.0 0.15 0.04 0.15 32.7 12 R2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.009 2.9 LOS A 0.0 1.0 0.15 0.04 0.15 32.5 Approach 12 2.0 12 2.0 0.009 2.9 LOS A 0.0 1.0 0.15 0.04 0.15 32.3 All Vehicles 91 2.0 91 2.0 0.034 2.9 LOS A 0.1 3.7 0.10 0.02 0.10 32.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches an d intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Const raint
effects.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Del Monte Blvd & Beach Rd (Site Folder: Future 2045 With Improvements PM)]
Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Del Monte Blvd
3 L2 All MCs 262 2.0 262 2.0 0.347 6.4 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.40 0.22 0.40 30.9 8 T1 All MCs 441 2.0 441 2.0 0.347 6.4 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.40 0.22 0.40 32.3 18 R2 All MCs 105 2.0 105 2.0 0.347 6.4 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.40 0.22 0.40 32.4 Approach 808 2.0 808 2.0 0.347 6.4 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.40 0.22 0.40 31.8 East: Beach Rd
1 L2 All MCs 42 2.0 42 2.0 0.261 8.2 LOS A 1.0 24.5 0.61 0.56 0.61 30.9 6 T1 All MCs 78 2.0 78 2.0 0.261 8.2 LOS A 1.0 24.5 0.61 0.56 0.61 31.4 16 R2 All MCs 62 2.0 62 2.0 0.261 8.2 LOS A 1.0 24.5 0.61 0.56 0.61 31.2 Approach 182 2.0 182 2.0 0.261 8.2 LOS A 1.0 24.5 0.61 0.56 0.61 31.2 North: Del Monte Blvd
7 L2 All MCs 58 2.0 58 2.0 0.227 5.9 LOS A 1.0 24.5 0.49 0.36 0.49 31.8 4 T1 All MCs 313 2.0 313 2.0 0.227 5.9 LOS A 1.0 24.5 0.49 0.36 0.49 32.7 14 R2 All MCs 67 2.0 67 2.0 0.227 5.9 LOS A 1.0 24.5 0.49 0.36 0.49 32.6 Approach 438 2.0 438 2.0 0.227 5.9 LOS A 1.0 24.5 0.49 0.36 0.49 32.6 West: Beach Rd
5 L2 All MCs 60 2.0 60 2.0 0.145 5.4 LOS A 0.6 14.1 0.47 0.36 0.47 31.7 2 T1 All MCs 69 2.0 69 2.0 0.145 5.4 LOS A 0.6 14.1 0.47 0.36 0.47 32.2 12 R2 All MCs 171 2.0 171 2.0 0.178 5.4 LOS A 0.7 17.4 0.46 0.34 0.46 32.8 Approach 300 2.0 300 2.0 0.178 5.4 LOS A 0.7 17.4 0.46 0.35 0.46 32.4 All Vehicles 1729 2.0 1729 2.0 0.347 6.3 LOS A 1.8 45.8 0.46 0.31 0.46 32.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches an d intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Const raint
effects.

MOVEMENT SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Imjin Rd & 8th St (Site Folder: Future 2045 With Improvements PM)]
Output produced by SIDRA INTERSECTION Version: 9.1.1.200 New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Vehicle Movement Performance
Demand
Flows
Arrival
Flows
95% Back Of
Queue
Mov
ID
Turn Mov
Class
Deg.

Satn
Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Prop.

Que
Eff.

Stop
Rate
Aver.

No. of
Cycles
Aver.

Speed
[ Total HV ] [ Total HV ] [ Veh. Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h % v/c sec veh ft mph
South: Driveway
3 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.135 4.4 LOS A 0.6 15.5 0.34 0.19 0.34 33.1 8 T1 All MCs 149 2.0 149 2.0 0.135 4.4 LOS A 0.6 15.5 0.34 0.19 0.34 33.7 18 R2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.135 4.4 LOS A 0.6 15.5 0.34 0.19 0.34 33.5 Approach 152 2.0 152 2.0 0.135 4.4 LOS A 0.6 15.5 0.34 0.19 0.34 33.7 East: 8th St
1 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.486 8.3 LOS A 3.3 84.8 0.48 0.25 0.48 31.3 6 T1 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.486 8.3 LOS A 3.3 84.8 0.48 0.25 0.48 31.9 16 R2 All MCs 559 2.0 559 2.0 0.486 8.3 LOS A 3.3 84.8 0.48 0.25 0.48 31.7 Approach 561 2.0 561 2.0 0.486 8.3 LOS A 3.3 84.8 0.48 0.25 0.48 31.7 North: Imjin Rd
7 L2 All MCs 11 2.0 11 2.0 0.084 3.1 LOS A 0.4 9.6 0.03 0.00 0.03 33.6 4 T1 All MCs 10 2.0 10 2.0 0.084 3.1 LOS A 0.4 9.6 0.03 0.00 0.03 34.2 14 R2 All MCs 92 2.0 92 2.0 0.084 3.1 LOS A 0.4 9.6 0.03 0.00 0.03 33.9 Approach 114 2.0 114 2.0 0.084 3.1 LOS A 0.4 9.6 0.03 0.00 0.03 33.9 West: 8th St
5 L2 All MCs 1 2.0 1 2.0 0.164 3.9 LOS A 0.8 20.4 0.11 0.03 0.11 33.4 2 T1 All MCs 166 2.0 166 2.0 0.164 3.9 LOS A 0.8 20.4 0.11 0.03 0.11 34.0 12 R2 All MCs 51 2.0 51 2.0 0.164 3.9 LOS A 0.8 20.4 0.11 0.03 0.11 33.7 Approach 217 2.0 217 2.0 0.164 3.9 LOS A 0.8 20.4 0.11 0.03 0.11 33.9 All Vehicles 1044 2.0 1044 2.0 0.486 6.2 LOS A 3.3 84.8 0.33 0.17 0.33 32.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Options tab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches an d intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Stopline Delay: Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: SIDRA queue estimation methods are used for Back of Queue and Queue at Start of Gap.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity Formula: Siegloch M1 implied by US HCM 6 Roundabout Capacity Model.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation.

Arrival Flows used in performance calculations are adjusted to include any Initial Queued Demand and Upstream Capacity Const raint
effects.

Description ADT
Volume LOS
16 Del Monte(2nd Ave)/Patton Parkway Extension 2-Lane Collector 3,733 A 17 8th Street - 3rd Ave to Intergarrison 2-Lane Collector 4,290 A 18 Salinas Avenue - Reservation Road to Carmel Avenue 2-Lane Collector 830 A 19 Imjin Parkway (12th) & SR1 Interchange 2-Lane Collector 4,480 A 20 Del Monte Blvd. - Beach Road to Marina Greens Drive 2-Lane Collector 2,460 A 21 Del Monte & SR 1 Interchange 4-Lane Expressway 24,610 B 22 Reservation Road - Beach to SR1 2-Lane Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 8,080 A 23 Reservation Road - Imjin Road to Blanco Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 17,890 A 24 Airport Access Road - - -
Roadway Segment
Existing
Description ADT
Volume LOS
16 Del Monte(2nd Ave)/Patton Parkway Extension 2-Lane Collector 4,075 A 17 8th Street - 3rd Ave to Intergarrison 2-Lane Collector 7,466 B 18 Salinas Avenue - Reservation Road to Carmel Avenue 2-Lane Collector 722 A 19 Imjin Parkway (12th) & SR1 Interchange 2-Lane Collector 20,078 F 20 Del Monte Blvd. - Beach Road to Marina Greens Drive 2-Lane Collector 10,073 D 21 Del Monte & SR 1 Interchange 4-Lane Expressway 20,673 B 22 Reservation Road - Beach to SR1 2-Lane Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 15,360 D 23 Reservation Road - Imjin Road to Blanco Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 42,173 F 24 Airport Access Road - - -
Roadway Segment
Future No Project
Description ADT
Volume LOS
16 Del Monte(2nd Ave)/Patton Parkway Extension 2-Lane Collector 4,075 A 17 8th Street - 3rd Ave to Intergarrison 2-Lane Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 7,466 A 18 Salinas Avenue - Reservation Road to Carmel Avenue 2-Lane Collector 722 A 19 Imjin Parkway (12th) & SR1 Interchange 4-Lane Freeway 20,078 A 20 Del Monte Blvd. - Beach Road to Marina Greens Drive 4-Lane Undivided Arterial (no left-turn lane) 10,073 A 21 Del Monte & SR 1 Interchange 4-Lane Expressway 20,673 B 22 Reservation Road - Beach to SR1 4-Lane Divided Arterial (w/ left-turn lane) 15,360 A 23 Reservation Road - Imjin Road to Blanco Road 6-Lane Expressway 42,173 C 24 Airport Access Road 2-Lane Collector 5,000 A
Roadway Segment
Future With Project
181
Land Use Category per Unit
Public Facilities
(General Gov.) Public Safety Parks Total
Residential
Single Family
Units 900 SF or less per Unit $787 $1,907 $4,585 $7,279 Units 901-2,999 SF per KSF $874 $2,119 $5,094 $8,087
Units 3,000 SF or greater per Unit $2,622 $6,356 $15,283 $24,261 Multifamily
Units 500 SF or less per Unit $807 $1,957 $4,706 $7,470 Units 501-1,599 SF per KSF $1,615 $3,914 $9,413 $14,942 Units 1,600 SF or greater per Unit $2,584 $6,263 $15,060 $23,907 Senior Homes
Units 500 SF or less per Unit $682 $1,653 $3,976 $6,311 Units 501-1,599 SF per KSF $1,364 $3,307 $7,952 $12,623 Units 1,600 SF or greater per Unit $2,183 $5,291 $12,723 $20,197 Assisted Living
Units 500 SF or less per Unit $341 $827 $1,988 $3,156
Units 501-1,599 SF per KSF $682 $1,653 $3,976 $6,311
Units 1,600 SF or greater per Unit $1,091 $2,645 $6,361 $10,097 Nonresidential
Office/Research per KSF $998 $2,420 - $3,418
Retail/Service per KSF $599 $1,452 - $2,051
Industrial per KSF $200 $484 - $684
Hotel per KSF $272 $660 - $932
Church per KSF $200 $484 - $684
Daycare Center per KSF $799 $1,936 - $2,735
Animal Hospital/Vet Clinic per KSF $1,198 $2,904 - $4,102 Medical/Dental per KSF $1,198 $2,904 - $4,102
(1) SF = Square Feet, KSF = 1,000 Square Feet.

Attachment C
Table 1 - Public Facilities, Public Safety, Parks (1)
182
Attachment C
Land Use Category per Unit Intersections Roadways Total Residential
Single Family per KSF $2,239 $8,236 $10,475
Senior Homes per Unit $2,429 $8,932 $11,361
Assisted Living per Unit $1,465 $5,388 $6,853
Multifamily per Unit $3,798 $13,968 $17,766
Nonresidential
Office/Research per KSF $6,045 $22,234 $28,279
Retail/Service per KSF $15,050 $55,351 $70,401
Industrial per KSF $2,772 $10,197 $12,969
Hotel per KSF $4,456 $16,388 $20,844
Church per KSF $4,018 $14,776 $18,794
Daycare Center per KSF $23,790 $87,499 $111,289
Animal Hospital/ClinicAnimal Hospital/Vet Clinic per KSF $12,240 $45,017 $57,257 Medical/Dental per KSF $20,495 $75,377 $95,872
(1) SF = Square Feet, KSF = 1,000 Square Feet.

Table 2 - Intersections and Roadways (1)
183
1 Current DIF Schedule
Land Use Unit Public Building Public Safety Parks Intersections Roadways Proposed Total Residential
Single Family DU $4,983 $1,074 $10,791 $2,275 $9,396 $28,519 Senior Homes DU $3,323 $714 $7,194 $881 $3,632 $15,744
Assisted Living – Senior DU $1,845 $397 $3,996 $633 $2,606 $9,477 Multifamily DU $4,615 $993 $9,991 $1,592 $6,563 $23,754 Non-Residential
Office/Research KSF $347 $651 - $2,593 $10,699 $14,290
Retail/Service KSF $209 $389 - $4,359 $17,983 $22,940
Industrial KSF $71 $129 - $1,638 $6,761 $8,599
Hotel ROOM $94 $177 - $1,920 $7,926 $10,117
Church KSF $71 $129 - $2,141 $8,837 $11,178
Day Care Center KSF $278 $522 - $17,415 $71,842 $90,057 Animal Hospital/Clinic KSF $417 $780 - $11,098 $45,786 $58,081 Medical Office KSF $417 $780 - $8,494 $35,048 $44,739
Attachment D
184
2 Proposed DIF Schedule
Land Use Unit Public Building Public Safety Parks Intersections Roadways Proposed Total Residential
Single Family KSF $2,185 $5,298 $12,735 $5,598 $20,590 $46,405 Senior Homes DU $2,183 $5,291 $12,723 $2,429 $8,932 $31,558 Assisted Living – Senior DU $1,091 $2,645 $6,361 $1,465 $5,388 $16,950 Multifamily DU $2,584 $6,263 $15,060 $3,798 $13,968 $41,673 Non-Residential
Office/Research KSF $998 $2,420 - $6,045 $22,234 $31,697 Retail/Service KSF $599 $1,452 - $15,050 $55,352 $72,452 Industrial KSF $200 $484 - $2,772 $10,197 $13,653
Hotel ROOM $272 $660 - $4,456 $16,388 $21,776
Church KSF $200 $484 - $4,018 $14,776 $19,478
Day Care Center KSF $799 $1,936 - $23,790 $87,499 $114,023 Animal Hospital/Clinic KSF $1,198 $2,904 - $12,240 $45,017 $61,358 Medical Office KSF $1,198 $2,904 - $20,495 $75,378 $99,974 2,500 SF
1,600 SF
1,600 SF
1,600 SF
Typical Size
185
Agenda item: 11c
City Council Meeting of
July 1, 2025

CITY COUNCIL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTING
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-, APPROVING 2025 SCHEDULE OF FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES.

This item is to be continued to August 6, 2025.

June 17, 2025 Item No. 11d

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Meeting Marina City Council of July 1, 2025

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER INTRODUCING ORDINANCE NO. 2025 -, AMENDING THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE (MMC) TITLE 17 ADDING SECTION 17.04.305 (GARDEN STRUCTURES), SECTION 17.42.060 (FENCES), AND CHAPTER 17.55 (STAFF APPROVALS AND
PROCEDURES) AND AMENDING SECTIONS 17.42.020 (USE
REGULATIONS), 17.42.055 (HEIGHT), AND 17.42.070 (YARDS) WITH CORRESPONDING UPDATES TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (17.06, 17.08,

17.10, AND 17.12) . THE PROPOSED ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

RECOMMENDATION: City council to

1. Consider introducing Ordinance No. 2025-, amending the Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Title 17 adding Section 17.04.305 (Garden Structures), Section 17.42.060 (Fences), and Chapter 17.55 (Staff Approvals and Procedures) and amending Sections 17.42.020 (Use Regulations), 17.42.055 (Height), and 17.42.070 (Yards) with corresponding updates to residential districts (17.06, 17.08, 17.10, and 17.12) ; and

2. Finding this action is exempt from environmental review per Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department (CDD) of the City of Marina (City), through its regular use and implementation of the Marina Municipal Code ’s (MMC) Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance), finds that targeted changes should be implemented to update and streamline the ordinance to better serve the community.

On April 10, 2025, the Planning Commission receive d an informational presentation and gave input on the proposed targeted amendments to Marina Municipal Code Title 17.

On June 12, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which staff presented and received input from the Commission on the proposed amendments to the Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Title 17, adding Section 17.04.305 (Garden Structures), Section 17.42.060 (Fences), and Chapter 17.55 (Staff Approvals and Procedures) and amending Sections 17.42.020 (Use Regulations), 17.42.055 (Height), and 17.42.070 (Yards) with corresponding updates to residential districts (17.06, 17.08, 17.10, and 17.12). The Planning Commission approved Resolution 2025 -07 with minor changes that recommended the City Council adopt changes to Chapter 17 of the Marina Municipal Code as described in the draft ordinance (EXHIBIT A).

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed changes are a targeted update to the Zoning Ordinance to formalize staff level review processes, update outdated standards, and align regulations with other cities in California.

These updates are intended to make the zoning code more user -friendly, provide clear and consistent guidance to customers, and support small businesses by streamlining certain permitting processes.

1 Staff proposes adding Chapter 17.55 (Staff Approvals and Procedures), which creates the processes for the different staff level approvals. This chapter defines the scope of staff -level decisions, including administrative design review, administrative use permits, and minor variances. Further, it incorporates the recently added Table in MMC Section 17.56.030 in the Site and Architectural Design Review Chapter that will soon include administrative design review thresholds.

The proposed staff approvals and procedures chapter is needed because staff proposes administrative review for sheds that are closer than four feet to a setback and for fences that exceed the height limits within setbacks. Further, staff suggests including minor variances that can be decided at a staff level for smaller requests, such as reducing development standards by ten percent or less or for fences over eight feet in height. These changes will streamline existing processes that do not receive public comments, which reduces costs for the public and makes the review more efficient. Further, by clarifying approval processes, required findings, public notification requirements, and opportunities for appeal, these changes enhance transparency in the planning process.

One of the main components of the targeted update is updating the fence regulations to reduce the number of variances needed. Section 17.42.060 (Fences) is amended to allow a retaining wall to be one foot taller for fences in combination with retaining walls. Further, it also establishes a new staff-level review process for fences and retaining walls up to six feet in front of properties or along the street and up to eight feet in the rear yard. This will allow property owners who live on a hill or have other mitigating reasons to construct retaining walls and fences for privacy and security. Further, it moves fences and retaining walls that exceed the development standards to be a minor variance, rather than a major variance. Additionally, the proposed amendments prohibit razor wire in all districts, set new provisions for temporary fencing, and prohibit the establishment of new gated communities consistent with General Plan Section 2.31.8.

Section 17.42.070 (Yards) has been simplified and made consistent with state law. For instance, requiring that all accessory structures be at least four feet from fences, which aligns with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) standards, while allowing staff -level review for exceptions.

This will also eliminate the requirement for costly design review with a public hearing for accessory structures that exceed 12 feet in residential districts and replace it with staff level design review. Another proposed section would limit cement or hardscape coverage to 50% of a residential lot, excluding homes and accessory structures, to enhance permeability and mitigate stormwater impacts.

Additional amendments focus on zoning definitions and outdated provisions. A definition for “Garden Structures” is being added in Section 17.04.305, and these structures would be explicitly permitted in R -1, R-2, R-3, and R -4 districts. Private stables are being removed as a conditionally permitted use in the R -1 District due to minimum parcel size requirements that no longer align with typical lot sizes. The mention of B District zoning designation is also being eliminated, as there are no remaining parcels under this classification and no reference within the zoning code.

Furthermore, the update includes zoning modifications to improve regulatory clarity and economic development for small businesses. For example, beer and wine permits will be eligible for staff-level approval under Section 17.42.020 (Use Regulations). Staff proposes this change after four years of no public input, no concerns from the Police Department, and no issues raised by the Planning Commission for these types of Conditional Use Permits. Additionally, staff has received feedback from multiple small business owners expressing interest in offering beer and wine but have been discouraged by the cost and complexity of a full Conditional Use Permit.

2 Allowing these requests at a staff level supports local businesses and reflects a reasonable and modernized approach to permitting.

Additionally, the ordinance introduces a separate “Height” section (17.42.055) to differentiate fence regulations under Section 17.42.060 (Fences). This aligns with other zoning ordinances and makes the regulations clearer for the public. Below is a table covering the extent of the proposed changes.

MMC
Reference Topic Summary of Proposed Changes Reason
Article 1: Definitions
Section

17.04.305 Garden Structures Adding the definition for “Garden Structures” to the Zoning Ordinance.

Ordinance missing the
definition.

Article 2: R-1 or Single-Family Residential
Section

17.06.030 Private Stables Remove Private Stables as a Conditionally permitted use from the R-1 District.

Requires at least a one-
acre parcel. No longer a
viable use.

Section

17.06.040 Garden Structures in R-1 Adding Garden Structures to R-1, Single Family Residential District.

Not previously included
in the ordinance.

Section

17.06.050
Height of Accessory
Structures
Amend the height of Accessory Structures to
be consistent with changes to 17.42.070.

Update the Zoning
Ordinance.

Section

17.06.120 B District
There is no B District zoning left in the
ordinance and no more parcels zoned as B
District.

Cleaning up outdated
references in the Zoning
Ordinance
Article 2: R-2 or Duplex Residential
Section

17.08.040 Garden Structures in R-2 Adding Garden Structures to R-2, Duplex Residential District.

Not previously included
in the ordinance.

Section

17.08.050
Height of Accessory
Structures
Amend the height of Accessory Structures to
be consistent with changes to 17.42.070.

Update the Zoning
Ordinance.

Article 2: R-3 or Limited Multiple-Family Residential
Section

17.10.040 Garden Structures in R-3 Adding Garden Structures to R-3, Limited Multiple-Family Residential District.

Not previously included
in the ordinance.

Section

17.10.050
Height of Accessory
Structures
Amend the height of Accessory Structures to
be consistent with changes to 17.42.070.

Update the Zoning
Ordinance.

Article 2: R-4 or Multiple Family Residential
Section

17.12.050 Garden Structures in R-4 Adding Garden Structures to R-4, Multiple- Family Residential District.

Not previously included
in the ordinance.

Section

17.12.060
Height of Accessory
Structures
Amend the height of Accessory Structures to
be consistent with changes to 17.42.070
Update the Zoning
Ordinance.

3 MMC
Reference Topic Summary of Changes Reason
Article 4: General Zoning Regulations
Section

17.42.020 Use Regulations Allow beer and wine permits to be a staff level decision Economic Development
Section

17.42.055 Height Add new Section for Height so that Fences can have its own Section: 17.42.060
Update the Zoning
Ordinance.

Section

17.42.060 Fences
Replace Height with Fences to add visibility
triangle, amend maximum height limitations
to include a staff level review process, add
standards for Garden Structures, prohibit
razor wire on fences, incorporate temporary
fencing and prohibit gated communities.

Update the Zoning
Ordinance to create clear
guidelines and add staff
level approvals.

Section

17.42.070 Yards
Simplify detached accessory structures by
increasing the required setback from one foot
to four feet to be consistent with Accessory
Dwelling Units and add a provision that
allows them closer with a Staff Level permit.

Further, staff propose to add a requirement
that no more than 50% of lots in residential
districts be covered by cement or hardscape.

Update the Zoning
Ordinance to create clear
guidelines and add staff
level approvals.

Article 6: Staff Approvals and Procedures
Chapter

17.55 Staff Approvals and
Procedures
Add a new chapter that establishes a clear
process for staff-level decisions. This
includes administrative design review,
administrative use permits, and minor
variances.

Create process for staff
level approvals.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) because the activity would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental review is necessary.

CONCLUSION
This request is submitted for City Council consideration and action.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________
Nicholas McIlroy, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Marina

4 REVIEWED/CONCUR:

____________________________
Guido Persicone, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Marina

____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

Exhibit A: Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B: PC Resolution 2025-07

5 Exhibit A
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE (MMC), TITLE 17 BY ADDING SECTION 17.04.305 (GARDEN STRUCTURES), SECTION

17.42.060 (FENCES), AND CHAPTER 17.55 (STAFF APPROVALS AND PROCEDURES) AND AMENDING SECTIONS 17.42.020 (USE REGULATIONS),

17.42.055 (HEIGHT), AND 1 7.42.070 (YARDS) WITH CORRESPONDING UPDATES TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (17.06, 17.08, 17.10, AND 17.12) IN THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

-oOo-

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Community Development Dept. (CDD) of the City of Marina (City), through its regular use and implementation of the Marina Municipal Code (MMC), finds that targeted changes should be implemented to update and streamline the ordinance to better serve the community.

2. On April 10, 2025, the Planning Commission received an informational presentation on the proposed amendments to Marina Municipal Code Title 17 and gave their input.

3. The proposed amendments include:
a. Modifying Title 17, Article 1 by adding Section 17.04.305 (Garden Structures) to Definitions;
b. Modifying Title 17, Article 2 by making changes to remove outdated language, update the residential districts with changes to height and permitted uses (17.06,

17.08, 17.10, and 17.12);
c. Modifying MMC Section 17.42.020 (Use Regulations) to allow beer and wine permits to be a staff level decision;
d. Modifying Title 17, Article 4 by changing Section 17.60 to be dedicated to Fences and renumbering Section 17.55 to be Height;
e. Modifying MMC Sections 17.42.060 (Fences), and 17.42.070 (Yards) to clarify the development standards and to allow changes to be reviewed administratively rather than with a variance; and
f. Modifying Title 17, Article 6 by adding Chapter 17.55 (Staff Approvals and Procedures) to provide a process for administrative review.

4. The proposed amendments to Chapter 17 of the MMC are consistent with Section 17.72 (Amendments).

5. Environmental. The proposed Ordinance amendments are not subject to environmental review pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed procedural changes would not result in a direct or a 6 reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have potential for causing significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental review is necessary.

6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

7. Severability. If any portion of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid the City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this Ordinance regardless of the absence of any such invalid part.

8. Posting of Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the three (3) public places designated by resolution of the City Council.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Marina duly held on July 1, 2025, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting duly held on August 6, 2025, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

______________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor

ATTEST: __________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk

7 Exhibit A
(New text is indicated with underlining, and deleted text is indicated with strikethrough)

Chapter 17.04 DEFINITIONS
Sections:

17.04.305 Garden Structures.

17.04.305 Garden Structures.
“Garden structures” includes arbors, trellises, pergolas, arches, and other similar open structures that are primarily designed to support the growth of plants or to provide shade and shelter in a garden or yard. Garden structures do not include accessory buildings, gazebos with a solid roof and floor, cisterns, hot tubs, fountains, walls, fences, hedges, and other similar features. The area of a garden structure area is calculated from the structure’s largest horizontal dimensions.

Chapter 17.06 R-1 OR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

17.06.030 R-1—Conditional uses.

Uses permitted, subject to first securing a use permit in each case, or in the Coastal Zone, a coastal permit, in the R-1 districts shall be as follows:

A. Public and quasi-public uses and buildings, including churches, firehouses, hospitals, parks and playgrounds, community or recreational centers, schools (public and parochial), or schools accredited to the state school system and public utility buildings and uses exclusive of corporate, storage or repair yards.

B. Private stables, subject to Section 17.42.030.

CB. Large residential care homes. Approval shall be pursuant to Section 17.58.040 (Use permit action by appropriate authority).

DC. Condominium and/or planned development projects, subject to the provisions of Chapter

17.66. D. Day care centers as defined in Section 17.04.211 and licensed under Title 22, Division 12 of the California Code of Regulations, as may be amended.
8 17.06.040 Accessory buildings, structures and uses.

Accessory buildings not intended for living purposes and accessory structures and uses permitted in the R-1 districts shall be on the same building site with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use, structure or building including, but not limited to:

A. Portable recreation structures;
B. Detached sheds, garages, workrooms, and other outbuildings in compliance with the limitations contained in Section 17.42.070;
C. Non-portable recreation structures located in a yard area screened from public and private streets; and.

D. Garden structures subject to Section 17.42.060 Paragraph J.

17.06.050 Building height.

A. Maximum building height limit in the R-1 districts shall be thirty feet for main buildings and sixteen feet for accessory buildings not intended for living purposes, except that approval by the planning commission Community Development Director shall be obtained prior to the construction of any accessory building over twelve feet in height, or if any portion within five feet of any lot line is over ten feet in height. Any action taken by the planning commissionCommunity Development Director may be appealed, in writing, to the planning commission within ten days of such action.

B. The maximum building heights for accessory dwelling units shall be governed by the provisions of Section 17.42.040.

C. The maximum building heights for public and quasi-public uses and buildings, including churches, firehouses, hospitals, parks and playgrounds, community or recreational centers, schools (public and parochial), or schools accredited to the state school system and public utility buildings and uses exclusive of corporate, storage or repair yards is forty feet.

Chapter 17.08 R-2 OR DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

17.08.040 Accessory buildings, structures and uses.

Accessory buildings not intended for living purposes and accessory structures and uses permitted in the R-2 districts shall be on the same building site with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use, structure or building including, but not limited to:
9 A. Portable recreation structures;
B. Detached sheds, garages, workrooms, and other outbuildings, in compliance with the limitations contained in Section 17.42.070;
C. Non-portable recreation structures located in a yard area screened from public and private streets; and
D. Garden structures subject to Section 17.42.060 Paragraph J.

17.08.050 Building height.

A. Maximum building height limit in the R-2 districts shall be thirty feet for main buildings and sixteen feet for accessory buildings not intended for living purposes, except that approval by the Community Development Director planning commission shall be obtained prior to the construction of any accessory building over twelve feet in height, or if any portion within five feet of any lot line is over ten feet in height. Any action taken by the Community Development Director planning commission may be appealed, in writing, to the planning commission within ten days of such action. Any action taken by the planning commission Community Development Director may be appealed, in writing, to the planning commission within ten days of such action.

B. The maximum building heights for accessory dwelling units shall be governed by the provisions of Section 17.42.040.

Chapter 17.10 R-3 OR LIMITED MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

17.10.040 Accessory buildings, structures and uses.

Accessory buildings not intended for living purposes and accessory structures and uses permitted in the R-3 districts shall be on the same building site with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use, structure or building including, but not limited to:

A. Portable recreation structures;
B. Detached sheds, garages, workrooms, and other outbuildings, in compliance with the limitations contained in Section 17.42.070;
C. Non-portable recreation structures located in a yard area screened from public and private streets; and
D. Garden structures subject to Section 17.42.060 Paragraph J. 10 17.10.050 Building height.

A. Maximum building height limit in the R-3 districts shall be thirty-five (35) feet and three stories for main buildings. The height limit for accessory buildings not intended for living purposes shall be sixteen feet, except that approval by the Community Development Director shall be obtained prior to the construction of any accessory building over twelve feet in height.

Any action taken by the Community Development Director may be appealed, in writing, to the planning commission within ten days of such action.

B. The maximum building heights for accessory dwelling units shall be governed by the provisions of Section 17.42.040.

Chapter 17.12 R-4 OR MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT

17.12.050 Accessory buildings, structures and uses.

Accessory buildings not intended for living purposes and accessory structures and uses permitted in the R-4 districts shall be on the same building site with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use, structure or building including, but not limited to:

17.12.060 Building height.

A. The maximum building height limit in the R-4 district shall be forty-two feet and three four stories. for main buildings. The height limit for accessory buildings not intended for living purposes shall be sixteen feet, except that approval by the Community Development Director shall be obtained prior to the construction of any accessory building over twelve feet in height.

Any action taken by the Community Development Director may be appealed, in writing, to the planning commission within ten days of such action.
11 B. The maximum building heights for accessory dwelling units shall be governed by the provisions of Section 17.42.040.

Chapter 17.42GENERAL ZONING REGULATIONS

17.42.020 Use regulations.

A. No dancehall, roadhouse, nightclub, commercial club, establishment or business where alcoholic beverages are served or sold for off-sale consumption, commercial place of amusement or recreation, including but not limited to an amusement center or arcade, or place where entertainers are provided whether as social companions or otherwise, shall be established in any zoning district in the city unless a use permit is first secured in each case. Incidental beer and wine, when served with food or sold with groceries, shall require an Administrative Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.55.

B. A finding of public convenience or necessity is required for an establishment or business where alcoholic beverages are served or sold for on- and/or off-sale consumption, except when incidental and in combination with food or groceries and within an area of undue concentration as determined by Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). Such finding shall require that selling of alcohol for on- and/or off-sale consumption at the subject establishment of business:

1. Will not constitute a public nuisance;

2. Will not occur within five hundred feet of a park or school or place of public assembly;

3. Will not contribute to law enforcement problems associated with an undue concentration of on- and/or off-sale licenses in the vicinity of the subject business or establishment.

17.42.060055 Height.

A. Chimneys, vents, cupolas, spires, and other architectural or mechanical appurtenances may be erected to a greater height than the limit established for the district in which the building is located, except in the Coastal Zone where the height of such structures shall be subject to a coastal permit.

B. Towers, poles, water tanks, and similar structures may be erected to a greater height than the limit established for the district in which they are to be located, subject to securing a use permit and, in the Coastal Zone, a coastal permit in each case.

17.42.060 Fences.

CA. In any required front yard or in any required exterior side yard or any side yard abutting a street, separate fences and retaining walls shall not exceed three and one-half feet in height and fences combined with retaining walls shall not exceed a combined height of four and one-half 12 feet with the retaining wall not exceeding one foottwo feet in height, all subject to modifications in subsections G F and H of this section. Maximum height limitations may be exceeded to six feet in height for fences, retaining walls and for combination of fences and retaining walls as determined necessary for public safety, privacy, or security subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or by the planning commission on appeal. The review authority may require alternative materials, segmented retaining walls, landscaping or other measures to mitigate the visual impacts of proposed fences and/or retaining walls or any combination thereof.

D. NOTE: Retaining walls exceeding thirty inches in height are required to meet all Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements. All persons planning to install a retaining wall should check with the Marina Building Division prior to installing a retaining wall. Retaining walls that exceed thirty inches in height above grade are required to install a thirty-six-inch (three-foot) tall guardrail on top of the retaining wall for safety reasons. The Marina Building Department shall determine when a guardrail is required. This note is provided for informational purposes only. It is not a quote from the UBC.

EB. In any required rear yard or in any required interior side yard or any required side yard not abutting a street, separate fences and separate retaining walls shall not exceed six feet in height, and fences combined with retaining walls shall not exceed a combined height of nine feet with the retaining wall not exceeding three four feet in height. Maximum height limitations may be exceeded to eight feet total height for fences and retaining walls and up to 12 feet in total height for combination of fences and retaining walls as determined necessary for public safety, privacy, or security subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or by the planning commission on appeal. The review authority may require alternative materials, segmented retaining walls, landscaping or other measures to mitigate the visual impacts of proposed fences and/or retaining walls or any combination thereof. Other factors in allowing a height exception include (1) to provide satisfactory visual or sound isolation of sensitive land uses from commercial activities such as contractors yards, loading docks and similar commercial activities or (2) to provide reasonable security for areas approved for outdoor storage of equipment or material associated with approved contractor’s yards to restrict unauthorized access to facilities that might be dangerous or hazardous or (3) to minimize grading and/or tree removal impacts.

FC. All heights referenced in subsections C A and D B of this section shall be measured from the finished ground elevation at the base of a separate fence and from the finished ground elevation at the base of the lower side of a separate retaining wall or a combined retaining wall and fence. A fence or a wall shall be considered a separate fence or a separate wall when the face of the fence and the face of the retaining wall are separated by a minimum three-foot horizontal distance or are located on separate building sites.
13 DG. The heights of fence columns may extend a maximum of six inches above the maximum height otherwise allowed by the height limitations described aboveherein. The height of arbors integrated into the design of a fence and incorporating a pedestrian opening in the fence may exceed the height limitations described aboveherein, provided the height of such an arbor does not exceed a height of twelve feet above the height of the finished ground elevation at the pedestrian opening.

E. As provided in Section 10.70.010 of the Marina Municipal Code Chapter 10.70 (Visibility at Intersections), corner parcels shall be developed in a manner that ensures unrestricted visibility across the corners of the intersecting streets, alleys, and private driveways.

1. The corner vision triangle area is a triangular-shaped area on a corner parcel formed by measuring the prescribed distance from the intersection of the front and street side property lines, an intersecting alley, or an intersecting driveway and connecting the lines diagonally across the property making a 90-degree triangle. See figure below.

2. The dimensions of a corner vision triangle are 25 feet from the intersection of two public or private street rights-of-way.

3. It is illegal to erect, place, plant, or allow to grow within the corner vision triangle area. a. Fences, walls, signs, accessory structures, mounds of earth, advertising matter, storage area, merchandise display area or other visual obstructions over 30 inches in height;
b. Hedges, shrubbery, and vegetation over or with a growth characteristic over 30 inches in height; and
c. Tree canopies maintained at a height less than seven feet above ground level, as measured from adjacent street curb elevation.

Property Line
14 H. Maximum height limitations as otherwise required above may be exceeded determined necessary by the planning commission on appeal (1) to provide satisfactory visual or sound isolation of sensitive land uses from commercial activities such as contractors yards, loading docks and similar commercial activities or (2) to provide reasonable security for areas approved for outdoor storage of equipment or material associated with approved contractor’s yards to restrict unauthorized access to facilities that might be dangerous or hazardous.

GI. Master fence plans for subdivisions of five units/lots or more shall be reviewed as part of the entitlement process. Master fence plans for minor subdivisions may, at the discretion of the applicant, be reviewed as part of the entitlement process. Master fence plans may deviate from the fence regulations stated herein if the Development Director or planning commission makes findings that the proposed fences provide public safety, privacy or security and are aesthetically pleasing from the street side view (findings are listed in order of importance). The Development Director or planning commission may require landscaping or other measures to mitigate the visual impacts of proposed fences and/or retaining walls or any combination thereof.

H. Garden structures are allowed, subject to the following standards:

1. A garden structure shall not encroach onto a public right-of-way.

2. If a garden structure has an area of 36 square feet or less, it may have a solid roof. If a garden structure has an area greater than 36 square feet, its roof shall be at least half open to the elements, with no solid roof portion greater in area than 36 square feet.

3. A garden structure 100 square feet or less in area may encroach into a required side yard or rear yard setback, but if greater than six feet in height, shall be located at least three feet from the property line, with the following exceptions:
a. If the property line faces a street or alley, one garden structure, over a gate or walkway, shall be allowed on the outward-facing property line. Such structures shall be no more than 24 square feet in area and shall be nine feet or less in height.
b. In each side yard setback, a single garden structure over a gate or walkway is allowed to encroach up to the property line. Such structures shall be nine feet or less in height, and shall not have a depth greater than two feet.

4. In required front yard setbacks, one garden structure is allowed over a gate or walkway.

Such structures shall be no more than 24 square feet in area with a height of nine feet or less and may be located either in the setback or on the front property line.

5. Vertical trellises that serve the same function as a fence shall be treated as a fence under MMC 17.42.060.
15 6. Garden structures exceeding these standards may be allowed with an administrative design review pursuant to Section 17.55.030. Garden structures outside of required setbacks do not require a planning permit.

I. Prohibited Materials

1. Fences in any district may not contain strands of barbed or razor wire, sharp or jagged glass, sharp or jagged metal components (e.g., razor-spikes), or similar materials. The only exception shall be for properties that contain a public safety hazard such as a power plant, facilities with hazardous materials or as determined by the Community Development Director, which must receive an Administrative Use Permit.

2. Prohibited fence materials on an existing fence may not be expanded or repaired. Further, all prohibited fence materials must be removed within one year of the feature becoming non-conforming.

J. Temporary fencing to secure and/or screen a property may be authorized by the Community Development Director or their designee on vacant lots, lots with an active building permit or a blighted property as defined in MMC Chapter 8.70 (Public Nuisance).

K. Gated communities shall not be allowed as part of a development application.

K. In the R-1 district, on a corner lot created prior to January 7, 1997, fences, retaining walls or combined retaining walls/fences are subject to the pre-January 7, 1997, fence regulations listed below:

1. Fences. Maximum height of six feet measured from the lowest ground elevation at wall, fence or screen planting or one foot above the lowest ground elevation with a three- foot horizontal distance from said wall, fence or screen planting, whichever measurement point results in the greater height;

2. Combined Retaining Wall/Fence. Maximum height of eight feet measured from the lowest ground elevation at wall, fence or screen planting or one foot above the lowest ground elevation within a three-foot horizontal distance from said wall, fence or screen planting, whichever measurement point results in the greater height;

3. No required side yard fence setbacks.

17.42.070 Yards.

A. In any case, where an official plan line has been established as a part of the street and highway master plan, the required yards on the street side shall be measured from such official plan lines and in no case shall the provisions of this title be construed as permitting any structures to extend beyond such building line.
16 B. Cornices, eaves, canopies, and similar architectural features may extend into any required yard not exceeding two and one-half feet.

C. Uncovered porches, or stairways, fire escapes or landing places may extend into any required front or rear yard not exceeding six feet, and into any required side yard not exceeding three feet. Covered porches on interior lots may extend into the required front yard not exceeding six feet and sixty square feet. Covered porches on corner lots may extend into any combination of the required front yard and the required exterior side yard not exceeding six feet and a total area of one hundred twenty square feet.

D. In any R or K district, where fifty percent or more of the building sites on any one block or portion thereof in the same district have been improved with buildings, the required front yard shall be of a depth equal to the average of the front yards of the improved building sites, to a maximum of that specified for the district in which such building site is located.

E. In case a dwelling is to be located so that the front or rear thereof faces any side lot line, such dwelling shall not be less than ten feet from such lot line.

F. In case a building site is less than sixty feet in width, side yards equal to ten percent of the lot width but not less than five feet shall be required, except in C or M districts.

G. In the case of a corner lot adjacent to a key lot, the required side yard on the street side for any building within twenty-five feet of the side line of the key lot shall be equal to the front yard required on the key lot, and if more than twenty-five feet from such side line, the required side yard shall be fifty percent of the front yard required on the key lot.

H. In case an accessory building is attached to the main building it shall be made structurally a part thereof and shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this title applicable to the main building.

I. Except as otherwise provided in subsection J of this section, detached accessory buildings not for living purposes shall not be located:

1. Within six five feet from the main building;

2. Within fifty feet from the front property line;Within the front one-half of the lot;3.

Within six feet from the sidelines of the front one-half of the lot;

4. Within six feet of the sidelines of the front one-half of any adjacent lot;

3. Within 10 feet of a street side-yard setback;

54. Within one four feetfoot of any lot line of the rear one-half of the lot;

65. So as to encroach on any easement or right-of-way of record; 17 76. Within six feet of an alley from which the building has access.

J. The location of accessory buildings not for living purposes may only exceed Notwithstanding the limitations of subsection I of this section subject to an administrative use permit,. The Community Development Director or the planning commission on appeal may require landscaping or other measures to mitigate the visual impacts of accessory buildings. detached accessory buildings with a projected roof area of less than one hundred twenty square feet as defined in the Marina building code, a height not exceeding eight feet, and on a building site used exclusively for single-family dwelling purposes in any residential district may be constructed or placed on the site as long as it is:

1. Located at least three feet from the main building or perimeter fence; and

2. Located within that portion of the site which is separated from the public way by the main building or by a minimum five-foot-high fence.

K. In case of a lot abutting upon two or more streets, the main building and accessory buildings shall not be erected so as to encroach upon the front yard or the exterior side yard required on any of the streets.

L. Notwithstanding any requirements in this section, in cases where the elevation of the front half of the lot at a point fifty feet from the centerline of the traveled roadway is seven feet above or below the grade of the centerline, a private garage attached or detached may be built to within five feet of the front line of the lot.

M. Nothing contained in the general provisions shall be deemed to reduce special yard requirements as set forth in the regulations for any R or K districts.

N. Structures, except utility poles and utility equipment appurtenant thereto, shall not be located so as to encroach on any utility or road easement or right-of-way.

O. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections B, C and H of this section, porches, decks and patios exceeding a height of eighteen inches and attached to the main building, and patio covers attached to the main building, may extend into the required rear yard and together with other buildings on the lot may occupy an area greater than the maximum site coverage allowed in the district in which it is located, except as follows:

1. The structures shall not extend more than ten feet into the required rear yard and shall not occupy an area of the required rear yard exceeding two hundred square feet.

2. The finished floor surface shall not exceed five feet in height and the patio cover is a single story structure not exceeding sixteen feet in height. 18 3. If the structure is enclosed by walls, the walls may have any configuration, provided the open area of the longer wall and one additional wall is equal to at least sixty-five percent of the area of each respective wall below a minimum of six feet eight inches measured from the floor.

4. Wall openings may be enclosed with insect screening, plastic or glass. The plastic or glass shall be readily removable, translucent or transparent and not exceed a thickness provided by the current edition of the Uniform Building Code.

5. Patio covers shall be used only for recreational and outdoor living purposes and not as carports, garages, storage rooms, commercial or business space or habitable space as defined by the current edition of the Uniform Building Code.

P. Stormwater Runoff Limitations. Impermeable surfacing may not exceed the stormwater runoff design for the parcel or lot and must not cause runoff to affect adjacent property.

Properties located in residential districts shall not cover the front, side or rear yards not including buildings and accessory structures with impermeable surfaces such as concrete, asphalt or hardscape more than 50% of the yard including the driveway and all pathways, unless approved by the Community Development Director. To exceed this standard, applicants must include calculations by a registered civil engineer demonstrating consistency with onsite stormwater retention subject to review by the City Engineer.

Figure (Limits on Paving and Hardscaping for Residential Front, Rear, and Side Yards)

19 Article 6, Chapter 17.55

STAFF APPROVALS AND PROCEDURES
Sections:

17.55.010 Purpose.

17.55.020 Types of Staff Approvals and Related Review Authorities.

17.55.030 Applicability.

17.55.040 Review Process.

17.55.050 Review Criteria.

17.55.060 Findings Required for Approval.

17.55.070 Effective Date of Decision.

17.55.080 Notice of administrative decision procedure.

17.55.010 Purpose.

This section establishes procedures and findings for the issuance of, and effective time periods for, staff-approved permits. No public hearings are held unless a request for a hearing is submitted or the Community Development Director refers it to the hearing authority. The intent of this section is to ensure that planning permits are in compliance with the general plan, local coastal program, objective design review, specific plans and these regulations, and are issued quickly yet allow for public input.

17.55.020 Types of Staff Approvals and Related Review Authorities.

Table 17.55.020.1 below, entitles “Types of Review and Roles of Review Authorities,” identifies the city official or body responsible for reviewing and making decisions on community development permit applications, legislative amendments, and other actions required by these regulations.

Table 17.55.020.1:

Types of Review and Roles of Review Authorities
Roles of Review Authorities
Type of Permit Application Director PC CC
Administrative Design Review Decision Appeal Appeal
Design Review Changes Decision Appeal Appeal
Lot mergers Decision Appeal Appeal
Reversion to acreage Decision Appeal Appeal
Lot-line adjustments Decision Appeal Appeal
Certificate of compliance Decision Appeal Appeal
Parcel map Decision Appeal Appeal
Admin. sign permit Decision Appeal Appeal
Admin. use permit and admin. use
permit amendments Decision Appeal Appeal
Admin. variance and admin.
variance amendments Decision Appeal Appeal
CC = City Council, PC = Planning Commission, and MMC = Marina Municipal Code Section.
20 Table footnotes:

1. “Decision” means that the review authority makes the decision on the matter; “appeal” means that the review authority may consider and decide upon appeals to the decision of an earlier decision-making body, in compliance with MMC Chapter 17.70 (Appeals).

2. The director may defer action and refer the item to the first hearing authority for decision.

17.55.030 Applicability.

The Community Development Director or designee is the decision-making authority for the following community development permits:

1. Administrative Design Review Permits.
a. Administrative Design Review Permits as described in Table 17.56.030. b. In all residential zoning districts, administrative design review permits may be granted for the following:
i. Detached accessory structures not intended for living that are 12 feet to 16 feet in height in the R-1 District;
ii. Structures, fences, retaining walls, or other visual obstructions in excess of height limits under MMC Section 17.42.060.F;
iii. Covering the yard outside of buildings and accessory structures with more than 50% with asphalt, concrete, or hardscape; and
iv. Garden structures exceeding the standards required by MMC 17.42.060 Paragraph J.

2. Design Review Changes. Once a Planning Commission design review permit or an administrative design review permit, outside the coastal zone, has been approved, but before the associated building permit becomes final, changes up to ten percent that modify the exterior design, height or setback of the project shall be processed as an administrative design change; provided, that cumulative design changes to a prior design review permit or administrative design review permit shall not appreciably alter the originally approved design.

3. Administrative subdivisions. The following subdivision map changes shall be reviewed at the staff level, in accordance with Title 16, Subdivisions:
a. Lot mergers, in accordance with this section and the procedures in MMC Chapter

16.12. b. Reversion to acreage, in accordance with this section and the procedures in MMC Chapter 16.14.
c. Parcel maps, in accordance with this section and the procedures in MMC Chapter

16.18. d. Lot line adjustments, in accordance with this section and the procedures in MMC Chapter 16.20.
e. Certificates of compliance, in accordance with this section and the procedures in MMC Chapter 16.22.

4. Administrative Sign Permit. An administrative sign permit may be granted for compliant signs as described in Section 17.46.050.
21 5. Administrative Use Permits. Administrative use permits and administrative use permit amendments may be granted for the following:
a. Beer and wine when served with food or sold with groceries. b. Detached or semi-detached accessory rooms within the R-1 district; c. Detached accessory structures not intended for living that exceed the limitations in Section 17.42.070 as allowed in Paragraph J;
d. Temporary use permits;
e. Barbed or razor wire affixed to the top of a fence for properties with public safety hazards;
f. Wireless eligible facilities requests (for modification of previously permitted wireless telecommunications facilities); and
g. Uses similar in nature as listed above as determined by the Community Development Director.

6. Minor Variances. Administrative variances and administrative variance amendments may be granted for the following:
a. Reductions in required yards or setbacks that are ten percent or less of the required distance;
b. Increases in maximum front yard setbacks;
c. Increases in allowable building site coverage of ten percent or less for additions to an existing structure;
d. The occupancy of any part of a required side or front yard by a parking pad; e. Fences or retaining walls over 8 feet in height; and f. Fences and retaining walls in combination over 12 feet.

17.55.040 Review Process.

Upon submittal of one of the community development permit applications listed in this section, the department shall process it in accordance with the following:

1. Staff reviews the proposed project for compliance with the general plan, certified local coastal program, these regulations, and other applicable conditions and regulations.

2. The Community Development Director issues a notice of administrative decision, pursuant to the procedures in 17.55.080, or determines that the permit application presents issues of sufficient public concern to warrant a public hearing and refers the application directly to the appropriate hearing authority. The hearing authority decision may be appealed in accordance with Chapter 17.70 (Appeals).

3. If no written request for a hearing is received by the department within 10 days of the issuance of the notice of administrative decision, then the action of the director is final.

17.55.050 Review Criteria.

For design review projects, the review criteria in MMC 17.56 and in Marina’s Objective Design Standards shall apply.

17.55.060 Findings Required for Approval.

Permit applications under this section shall be approved or approved with conditions, only if the review authority first makes all the following applicable findings:

1. Findings for All Staff Approvals
22 a. The proposed development conforms to the applicable provisions of the general plan, the local coastal program, any applicable specific plan, and these regulations;
b. The proposed development is located on a legally created lot; c. The subject property is otherwise in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to uses, subdivision, setbacks, and any other applicable provisions of this municipal code, and all applicable zoning violation enforcement and processing fees have been paid; and
d. The proposed development is in compliance with all citywide permits, including, but not limited to, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

2. Additional Findings for Administrative Use Permits and Variances. a. The findings in MMC 17.58.040 shall apply to administrative use permits; b. Additional Finding for Administrative Use Permits for Fences, Deer Fences, and Garden Structures. The proposed fencing, and/or garden structure, will be in keeping with the neighborhood and will not obstruct views, air or light from the adjoining public street(s) without there being unique or exceptional circumstances of the property to warrant it; and
c. The findings in MMC 17.60.030 shall apply to administrative variances.

3. Administrative Use Permit (AUP) Findings for Wireless Eligible Facilities Requests. a. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility qualifies as a wireless eligible facilities request, satisfying each element specified in 47 CFR Sections 1.6001 through 1.6100, as may be amended.
b. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility complies with applicable safety codes and guidelines, and FCC regulations governing radiofrequency emissions.

17.55.070 Effective Date of Decision.

The decision shall become effective only when:

1. The 10-day request for hearing period has expired, or the appeal period following a hearing authority decision has expired or, if appealed in accordance with Chapter 17.70; and

2. All necessary prior approvals have been obtained.

17.55.080 Notice of administrative decision procedure.

Notice of an administrative decision to approve a community development permit shall be given as follows:
(a) Contents of Notice. The contents of a notice of administrative decision shall be as follows:
a. Hearing Information. A brief description of the city’s general procedure concerning the conduct of hearings and decisions; and the phone number and street address of the department, where an interested person could call or visit to obtain additional information;
b. Project Information. The date of filing of the application and the name of the applicant; the city’s file number assigned to the application; a general explanation 23 of the matter to be considered; and a general description, in text and/or by diagram, of the location of the property that is the subject of the hearing; c. Coastal Zone Information. If the proposed development is within the coastal zone, the notice shall also include a statement that the development is within the coastal zone.
(b) Method of Notice Distribution. A notice of administrative decision shall be given as follows:
(1) Mailed notice for administrative permits as referenced herein shall be provided to:
(A) Owners of all property that are abutting the exterior boundaries of the subject lot.

The names and addresses used for such notice shall be those appearing on the equalized county assessment roll, as updated from time to time; and (B) Any person who has filed a written request for notice with the department and has paid the required fee for the notice.
(2) Posting. The department shall conspicuously post notice on the subject lot in a location that can be viewed from the nearest street. If the subject lot is a through lot, a notice shall be conspicuously posted adjacent to each street frontage in a location that can be viewed from the street.
(3) Timeline. The notice shall be mailed and posted at least 10 days before an action by the Community Development Director or their designee to approve a community development permit.
(4) Duration of Posting. The notice shall be continuously posted from the date required by subsection (b)(3) of this section until the effective date of the Community Development Director or their designee’s decision to approve, or approve with conditions, the community development permit.
(5) Provide Comment. Members of the public may provide comments during the 10 days prior to the approval by the Community Development Director or their designee.

1924350.1

24 EXHIBIT B
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 June 26, 2025 Agenda Item: 11e

Honorable Members Marina City Council Meeting
Of The Marina City Council of July 1, 2025

MARINA CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER INTRODUCING ORDINANCE
NO. 2025 -, AMENDING THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE (MMC),
TITLE 8, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.80 - “SHOPPING CART
REGULATIONS”. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PERSUANT TO SECTION 15061( B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Introducing Ordinance No. 2025-, amending the Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Title 8, to add Chapter 8.80 relating to shopping cart regulations as directed; and

2. Find this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

BACKGROUND
Abandoned shopping carts constitute a nuisance, create potential hazards to the health and safety of the public, and interfere with pedestrian and vehicular traffic within the City. The accumulation of wrecked, abandoned, and dismantled shopping carts on public or private property also tends to create conditions that reduce property values and promote blight and deterioration.

Staff received a request from the City Council to begin examining this policy issue. From January through March staff reviewed other cities’ shopping cart regulations and crafted the proposed ordinance based on the needs of the City of Marina. 1 The MMC Amendment for shopping cart regulations is to address current and potential future safety issues and give clarity as to how shopping cart regulations are addressed within the City.

Chapter 19 of the California Business and Professions Code (Sections 22435 to 22435.13) provides regulations to eliminate the accumulation of abandoned shopping carts and permits local governments to develop complementary regulations via ordinance. This chapter would implement and augment these provisions of state law.

On May 2, 2025, staff conducted an outreach meeting via zoom for the businesses and shopping centers impacted by this ordinance. Staff received input related to different impacts and concerns that staff has addressed in the ordinance and staff report below.

On June 6, 2025, staff presented the draft ordinance to the Public Works Commission and received input that has been incorporated into the draft ordinance (EXHIBIT A).

ANALYSIS
Staff has identified several pros and cons associated with including these provisions in the MMC.

One benefit of shopping cart regulations is that they will provide further clarity regarding the regulation of current and future shopping cart nuisances in the City of Marina. By deterring cart removal by individuals and imposing responsibility on business owners, the regulations support the goal of preventing shopping carts from being removed and abandoned.

1 City of Patterson Municipal Code Chapter 9.26; City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 8.10. 1 One potential drawback to the shopping cart regulations is the increased burden on the City for the regulation and management of these potential nuisances. Here is a non-exhaustive list of ongoing staff obligations under this ordinance:
• Cart retrieval:
o Notification to the business owner that a shopping cart is abandoned; o Waiting for 72 hours after notification;
o Retrieval of the cart after owner’s failure to retrieve; and o Second notification to the business owner that the City has retrieved the cart. • Cart impoundment:
o Disposal is only allowed after 30 days , so staff must track how long each cart has been impounded.
o Under Business and Professions Code Section 22435.7(e), the City must hold impounded carts at a location that is both:
▪ (1) reasonably convenient to the owner of the shopping cart; and ▪ (2) open for business at least six hours of each business day.

The ordinance will likely increase staff workload in the first several months after its adoption because of the requirement that all current and future business owners submit a shopping cart containment plan no later than 90 days after the ordinance takes effect (or 60 days after their business license is issued for new businesses ). Staff obligations related to these plans include the following:
• Inform business owners that they need to submit a shopping cart containment plan2; • Track all businesses that are subject to the ordinance to confirm that they have submitted plans;
• Follow-up with owners who have not submitted plans on time (and possibly fine them if they remain out of compliance after multiple notices);
• Notify the owner within 30 days of submission whether the containment plan is consistent with the standard plan or if changes are required.

FISCAL IMPACT
Business owners must submit a cart retrieval plan within 90 days of the ordinance taking effect.

The fee for reviewing the cart retrieval plan or plan amendment is proposed to be set at $220 and established by a separate fee schedule amendment in conjunction with this ordinance amendment.

Business owners who fail to submit a plan for implementing the proposed plan measures, or who fail to implement any required modifications to the plan within the timeframes specified , would be subject to a $500 civil penalty, plus an additional penalty of $50 for each day of noncompliance.

Note that other jurisdictions have imposed fines of up to $1,000 for failure to submit shopping cart management plans on time.3 Other jurisdictions have imposed fees for the cost of reviewing plans.4

The ordinance references the California Business and Professions Code (BPC), which has limitations on the fees that municipalities can charge. BPC Section 22435.7(f) limits the maximum fine to retrieve and impound an abandoned shopping cart to fifty dollars ($50). If this amount is increased by the legislature, then the City will be able to increase the citation amount without

2 Example Abandoned Shopping Cart Prevention and Retrieval Plan (San Luis Obispo):
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/32411/637920087539200000 3 See, e.g., City of Milpitas Municipal Code § V-13-160 (imposing $1,000 penalty and additional $50 penalty per each day of noncompliance for failure to timely submit plan); Daly City Municipal Code § 8.58.140 (requiring installation of disabling devices upon failure to timely submit plan, and imposing $1,000 penalty and additional $50 penalty per day of noncompliance).
4 See, e.g., City of San Jose Municipal Code § 9.60.340 (requiring with submission of plan the payment of a fee set by City Council resolution).
2 modifying the ordinance. Further, 22435.7(d) allows a city to recover its actual costs for impounding shopping carts when a shopping cart impedes emergency services or when a business has been notified and it remains after three days . Unauthorized possession of an abandoned shopping cart may result in an infraction or an administrative citation starting at $100 per day.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Staff has determined that the exemption applies in this case because the proposed procedural changes would not result in a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have potential for causing significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental review is necessary.

CONCLUSION
This request is submitted for City Council consideration and action.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Shane Doughty
Planning Intern
City of Marina

Nicholas McIlroy, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

____________________________
Guido Persicone, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Marina

Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

Exhibit A: Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B: Draft Shopping Containment Plan Fee

3 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE (MMC), TITLE 8, BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.80 - “SHOPPING CART REGULATIONS”. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PERSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B) (3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Community Development Department (CDD) of the City of Marina (City), through its regular use and implementation of the Marina Municipal Code (MMC), finds that new language should be added for clarity.

2. The addition to Title 8 of MMC Chapter 8.80 explicitly states that abandoned carts are a Health and Safety issue and gives the City of Marina the ability to impound abandoned shopping carts if necessary.

3. The adoption of these procedural standards will clarify important processes for both City staff and the general public.

4. Title 8, Chapter 8.80 entitled “Shopping Cart Regulations”, containing Sections 8.80.010 to 8.80.190, is hereby added to the Marina Municipal Code to read as set forth on the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

5. Chapter 8.80 will become the central location for regulations pertaining to shopping cart procedures in the City of Marina. This chapter will not impact the defined terminology for an abandoned shopping cart in MMC Section 8.70.050 (“Nuisance defined”).

6. Environmental. The proposed Ordinance amendments are not subject to environmental review pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) because the proposed procedural changes would not result in a direct or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and the proposed ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have potential for causing significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental review is necessary.

7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.
4 8. Severability. If any portion of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid the City Council hereby declares that it would have enacted the remainder of this Ordinance regardless of the absence of any such invalid part.

9. Posting of Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the three (3) public places designated by resolution of the City Council.

AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN, COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor
ATTEST:

_________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
5 Exhibit A

Chapter 8.80 - Shopping Cart Regulations

8.80.010 Intent and declaration of nuisance.

8.80.020 Definitions.

8.80.030 Enforcement authority.

8.80.040 Shopping cart identification signs.

8.80.050 Shopping cart containment plan required.

8.80.060 Permission for cart removal from business premises.

8.80.070 Cart containment plan review fee.

8.80.080 Shopping cart retrieval – registration and records required.

8.80.090 Cart containment plan approval, conditional approval or denial.

8.80.100 Penalties for failing to submit a prevention plan.

8.80.110 Repeat offenders – imposition of additional measures to prevent cart removal.

8.80.120 Physical containment system.

8.80.130 Unauthorized acts or possession of an abandoned shopping cart.

8.80.140 Shopping cart retrieval.

8.80.150 Impound, retrieval, and administrative costs and fines.

8.80.160 Exemptions.

8.80.170 Disposition of carts after thirty days.

8.80.180 Remedies.

8.80.190 Appeal procedure.

8.80.010 Intent and declaration of nuisance.

A. In enacting this chapter, the City of Marina (City) hereby finds that abandoned shopping carts constitute a nuisance, create potential hazards to the health and safety of the public, and interfere with pedestrian and vehicular traffic with the City. The accumulation of wrecked, abandoned, and dismantled shopping carts on public or private property also tends to create conditions that reduce property values and promote blight and deterioration.

B. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that measures are taken by store owners to prevent the removal of shopping carts from store premises and parking lots and to facilitate the retrieval of abandoned shopping carts as permitted by State law. This chapter implements the provisions of California Business and Professions Code Section 22435 et seq.

C. To the extent any provision of this chapter is determined to be preempted by state law or otherwise held invalid, it shall be deemed severed from all other provisions of this chapter and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

8.80.020 Definitions.

A. “Abandoned cart” shall mean any shopping cart that has been removed without written permission of the cart owner or on-duty manager from the premises of the business establishment, regardless of whether it has been left on either private or public property.

B. “Business premises” shall mean the entire area owned and utilized by the business establishment that provides carts for use by customers, including any parking lot or other property provided by the cart owner for customer parking.

C. “Cart owner” shall mean any person or entity, who, in connection with the conduct of a business, owns, leases, possesses, uses, or otherwise makes any cart available to customers or the public. For the purposes of this chapter, “cart owner” shall also include the owner’s on-site or designated agent that provides the carts for use by its customers.

D. “Enforcement official” shall mean the city manager or other enforcement official as designated by the city manager.
6 E. “Qualified cart retrieval service” shall mean a city approved commercial service operated by a third party and paid by a cart owner to retrieve and return shopping carts.

F. “Shopping cart” or “cart” shall mean a basket which is mounted on wheels or a similar device provided by a business establishment for use by a customer for the purpose of transporting goods of any kind, including, but not limited to, grocery store shopping carts.

8.80.030 Enforcement authority.

A. The city manager and their designees shall have the authority and powers necessary to determine whether a violation of this chapter exists and to take appropriate action to gain compliance with the provisions of this chapter and applicable state codes. These powers include, without limitation,
the authority to impound the shopping carts, issue administrative citations, inspect public and private property, impose civil penalties for any violation of this chapter, or pursue criminal actions. The provisions of this chapter are cumulative and in addition to any and all other procedures or remedies provided in ordinances of the City or by state law for the abatement of, or prosecutions for, nuisances.

8.80.040 Shopping cart identification signs.

A. Each cart owner shall post and maintain a sign at each customer pedestrian exit at the owner’s establishment which meets all the following minimum specifications:

1. Meet or exceed eighteen inches in width and twenty-four inches in height.

2. Using block lettering not less than one-half inch in width and two inches in height, contain a statement to the effect that unauthorized removal of a shopping cart from the business premises, or possession of a shopping cart in a location other than on the business premises, is a violation of state law and city ordinance.

3. List a local or toll-free telephone number and email for shopping cart retrieval.

4. The signs shall be conspicuously and prominently displayed on the interior walls of the building within two feet of each customer pedestrian exit.

B. Each cart owner shall include clearly legible information on each shopping cart that identifies the owner of the cart or the retailer, or both; notifies the public of the procedure to be utilized for authorized removal of the cart from the premises; notifies the public that the unauthorized removal of the cart from the premises or parking area of the retail establishment, or the unauthorized possession of the cart, is a violation of state law; and lists a valid telephone number or address for returning the cart removed from the premises or parking area to the owner or retailer.

8.80.050 Shopping cart containment plan required.

A. Each cart owner must contain all shopping carts on the business premises except as provided by this chapter.

B. Every cart owner shall operate and maintain a shopping cart containment program pursuant to a shopping cart containment plan. Every cart owner shall submit a proposed plan no later than ninety days after the effective date of this chapter. Any cart owner which opens operations after the effective date of this chapter shall submit a proposed plan no later than sixty days after the issuance of their business license under MMC Chapter 5.16. The shopping cart containment plan must contain all of the following provisions:

1. Name of the Owner. The name of the business owner, the physical address of the owner’s establishment, and the name, address and phone number(s) if different from the business owner.

2. Inventory of Carts. A complete inventory of carts maintained on or in the business premises.
7 3. Cart Identification. Shopping cart identification requirements as listed in Section

8.80.040(B).

4. Loss Prevention Measures. A description of the specific measures that the cart owner shall implement to prevent cart removal from the business premises. These measures may include, but are not limited to:
a. Placing signs directing customers not to remove the shopping carts from the business premises without express written consent of the cart owner; b. Using courtesy clerks to accompany customers and return the carts to the owner’s establishment;
c. Using security personnel to prevent shopping carts from being removed from the business premises or requiring a security deposit for use of a cart; d. Providing small, two-wheeled shopping carts that a customer may rent or purchase for the customer’s personal use;
e. Providing a neighborhood shuttle or other service to transport purchased goods for a customer;
f. Installing on shopping carts electronic disabling devices, such as wheel locks, which disable the cart upon crossing a barrier at the perimeter of the business premises;
g. Installing barriers on carts or at the doors, near the loading areas, or at other defined perimeters of the business premises to prevent the passage of a cart beyond such barrier.

C. A cart owner shall submit a plan amendment to address any changed circumstances no later than sixty days after the change occurs. The addition of more than ten carts to a cart owner’s inventory constitutes a changed circumstance; the cart owner shall notify the Community Development Department of this addition no later than ten days after the addition, and submit a plan amendment as required by this section.

8.80.060 Permission for cart removal from business premises.

No person shall be deemed to be authorized to remove a shopping cart from the business premises unless such person possesses express written authorization from the cart owner. Written permission shall be valid for a period of time not to exceed seventy-two hours. A contract between the cart owner and a person to provide repair or maintenance of the owner’s carts constitutes express written authorization for such person to remove the owner’s carts for the purpose of repair or maintenance.

8.80.070 Cart containment plan review fees.

A cart owner must submit a shopping cart containment plan that complies with the requirements established in Section 8.80.050, and any amendments to a shopping cart containment plan previously approved. The cart owner shall pay a fee upon submitting the plan or plan amendment for review of the plan or plan amendment in an amount established by ordinance of the City Council.

8.80.080 Shopping cart retrieval—Registration and records required.

Any person or business who engages in shopping cart retrieval must be registered with the city so as to provide contact names and phone numbers to city enforcement staff. Each shopping cart retrieval business shall retain records showing written authorization from the shopping cart owner, or any agent thereof, to retrieve the cart or carts and to be in possession of the cart or carts retrieved. A copy of the record showing written authorization shall be maintained in each vehicle used for shopping cart retrieval and presented to enforcement personnel upon request.

8.80.090 Cart containment plan approval, conditional approval or denial. 8 A. The city manager or their designee shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny a proposed shopping cart containment plan, and shall notify the cart owner of such decision within thirty days of receipt of the plan and payment of the fee required pursuant to Section 8.80.070. If approved, the cart containment plan shall be implemented by the cart owner no later than thirty days from the date of approval.

B. A shopping cart containment plan or an amendment to a plan may be approved subject to conditions, or denied based upon one or more of the following grounds:

1. Implementation of the plan violates any provision of the building, zoning, health, safety, fire, police, or other provision of this code or any county, state or federal law which substantially affects public health, welfare, or safety;

2. The plan fails to include all of the information required by this chapter;

3. The plan is insufficient or inadequate to prevent removal of shopping carts from the business premises as evidenced by data regarding the cart owner’s abandoned shopping carts;

4. The plan fails to address any special or unique conditions due to the geographical location of the business premises as they relate to cart retention and prevention efforts;

5. Implementation of the plan violates another provision of the Municipal Code;

6. The cart owner knowingly makes a false statement of fact or omits a material fact required to be submitted for the plan, or for any amendment to the plan or in any other information required by the city.

C. Within fifteen (15) days of the written decision of the city manager or their designee that a plan or amendment is incomplete or denied, the cart owner shall submit a revised or complete plan, as appropriate. The city may require specific measures to be included in the plan, including mandatory electronic disabling devices.

D. The city manager may revoke any prior approval of a plan based on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection B of this section.

8.80.100 Penalties for failing to submit a prevention plan.

Any cart owner that fails to submit a plan, implement the proposed plan measures, or implement any required modifications to the plan by the city within the time frames specified in this chapter shall be subject to a five-hundred-dollar civil penalty, plus an additional penalty of fifty dollars for each day of noncompliance.

8.80.110 Repeat offenders—Imposition of additional measures to prevent cart removal.

Specific measures may be required by the city to prevent cart removal from the business premises if the business has had more than three carts impounded in any six-month period. These measures may include, but are not limited to: ordering the business to immediately install disabling devices on all of their shopping carts, requiring the posting of a security guard to deter and stop customers who attempt to remove carts from the premises, installation of bollards, chains or similar devices around the premises to prevent cart removal, or requiring that the business provide for the rental or sale of carts that can be temporarily or permanently used by customers for transport of purchases to a location outside the premises.

8.80.120 Physical containment system.

A. A cart owner shall be required to install a physical containment system to the satisfaction of the planning director when the cart owner establishes a facility consisting of more than five thousand square feet or more of new construction.

B. A cart owner shall be required to install a physical containment system to the satisfaction of the planning director and the city manager following the issuance of more than ten administrative citations in a thirty-day period.

C. Mandatory locking of carts after hours. Carts stored outdoors shall be locked after business hours in a manner that prevents theft.
9 8.80.130 Unauthorized acts or possession of an abandoned shopping cart.

It is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:

A. To either temporarily or permanently remove a cart that has a permanently affixed sign as provided in MMC Section 8.80.040.B from the premises or parking area of a business establishment without the express prior written approval of the cart owner or on-duty manager of the business establishment. Written permission shall be valid for a period of time not to exceed seventy-two hours.

B. Except in cases where written permission is granted, to be in possession of a cart that has been removed from the premises or parking area of a business establishment unless it is in the process of being immediately returned to the cart owner or business establishment.

C. To alter, convert, or tamper with a shopping cart, or to remove any part or portion thereof, or to remove, obliterate or alter serial numbers on a shopping cart or to be in possession of any shopping cart with serial numbers removed, obliterated, or altered, with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the cart owner of possession of the cart.

D. To leave or abandon a shopping cart at a location other than the business premises with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the cart owner of possession of the shopping cart.

This section shall not apply to shopping carts that are removed for the purposes of repair or maintenance.

8.80.140 Shopping cart retrieval.

A. The city may retrieve an abandoned cart from public property (or private property with the consent of the property owner) in the following circumstances:

1. Where the location of the shopping cart will impede emergency services;

2. When the abandoned shopping cart does not identify the owner of the cart, as required in Section 8.80.040;

3. When the city has contacted either the cart owner, the cart owner’s agent, or the entity contracted by the cart owner under the abandoned cart prevention plan, and actually notified them of the abandoned cart and the cart has not been retrieved within seventy-two hours;

4. When the shopping cart is in a public right-of-way.

B. Alternatively to subsection A of this section, the city shall immediately abate, remove, and impound an off-site shopping cart that has identifying information affixed to it, as set forth in Section 8.80.040, if the city provides the cart owner, or whoever is identified by the cart owner as the party responsible for retrieval of the carts, with actual notice within twenty-four hours following the impound and informs the cart owner or responsible party of the location where the off-site shopping cart may be claimed.

8.80.150 Impound, retrieval, and administrative costs and fines.

A. In the event the city retrieves a shopping cart, the city shall notify the cart owner or the responsible party, as identified in Section 8.80.080, of the following:

1. The location of the shopping cart(s).

2. How the shopping cart(s) may be retrieved.

3. Failure to retrieve the shopping cart(s) may result in the sale or destruction of the impounded shopping cart(s), and that the cart owner will be responsible for the city’s costs, and that the city may fine owners fifty dollars after the city has picked up shopping carts belonging to the cart owner more than three times in a calendar year.

4. If the shopping cart does not provide adequate identification or markings to determine its owner, the city shall only be required to notify the cart owner if the city obtains actual knowledge of the cart owner’s identity.
10 B. The city’s enforcement officer may issue an administrative citation as stipulated in California Code, Business and Professions Code - BPC § 22435.7.

C. The enforcement officer or Public Works Department that impounds a shopping cart under the authority of this ordinance and under State Law is authorized to recover its actual costs for providing this service as stipulated in BPC § 22435.7.

D. Notwithstanding Section 8.80.160, the city is not obligated to release an impounded shopping cart to the cart owner unless the owner pays all applicable administrative citation and impound fees.

8.80.160 Exemptions.

No administrative citation fine shall be levied against:

A. A cart owner who installs and maintains a security system that causes at least one of the wheels of the shopping cart to lock when the conveyance is moved across an antenna located at the perimeter of the establishment’s parking area.

B. A business that owns or maintains fifteen or less shopping carts for use by customers.

C. Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from imposing and collecting an impound fee prior to releasing any impounded shopping cart.

8.80.170 Disposition of carts after thirty days.

If a shopping cart is not retrieved by its owner within thirty days after the cart owner has received notice of the cart being impounded, or if the cart’s owner cannot be determined within thirty days after the cart has been impounded, the cart, pursuant to state law, may be sold or destroyed by the city, its agents, or contractors.

8.80.180 Remedies.

Any person who violates any provisions of this chapter shall be subject to any civil, criminal, or administrative remedies as provided by law. Unless otherwise stated in this chapter, a violation of this chapter shall be assessed as an infraction pursuant to MMC Chapter 1.08 (Code Violations – Penalties) with a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for the first conviction. If the violation is on private property, then the enforcement official shall issue an administrative citation pursuant to MMC Chapter 1.12 (Administrative Fines).

8.80.190 Appeal procedure
The business owner may appeal administrative citations as provided for appeal of administrative fines in Chapter 1.12.

1932987.1

11 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-11

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA
AMENDING SECTION 10.60.010 “SPEED LIMITS ESTABLISHED” OF CHAPTER 10.60 “SPEED LIMITS” OF TITLE 10 “VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,”

OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS

PURSUANT TO AN ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY AND THE

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Sections 22357 and 22358 provide that local entities may declare prima facie speed limits of more than 25 miles per hour on City streets on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey; and
WHEREAS, THE California Vehicles Code Section 627 defines an engineering and traffic survey to include consideration of all of the following:
1) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements; 2) Accident records;
3) Highway, traffic and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver; and WHEREAS, the City of Marina has completed an engineering and traffic survey pursuant to California Vehicle Code Sections 22357 and 22358.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MARINA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City of Marina is authorized to use radar enforcement of speed limits on local streets pursuant to the prima facie speed limits specified in the California Vehicle Code and on other streets if the speed limits established by the City are consistent with the results of an engineering and traffic survey conducted according to the standards set forth in the California Vehicle Code.

SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Marina finds and declares that an Engineering and Traffic Survey has been completed in full compliance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code.

SECTION 3 Based on the findings and recommendations of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, all Subsections of Section 10.60.010 entitled “Speed Limits Established” of Title 10, Chapter 10.60 , of the Marina Municipal Code are amended, repealing in their entirety and replacing Subsections A through G and adding Subsections H through Y; to read in their entirety as follows:
“A. Reservation Road, as follows:

1. Thirty-five miles per hour from Dunes Drive to Beach Road;

2. Thirty miles per hour from Beach Road to Del Monte Blvd;

3. Thirty-five miles per hour from Del Monte Blvd to Crescent Ave;

4. Forty miles per hour from Crescent Ave to Salinas Ave;

5. Fifty miles per hour from Salinas Avenue to Imjin Parkway;

6. Fifty-five miles per hour from Imjin Parkway to Blanco Road.

Agenda Item: 13a
June 24, 2025
July 1, 2025
1 Ordinance No. 2025-

Page 2 ends

B. Del Monte Boulevard, as follows:

1. Thirty-Five miles per hour from six hundred feet south of Reindollar Avenue to Reservation Road;

2. Thirty miles per hour from Reservation Road to Beach Road;

3. Forty miles per hour from Beach Road to Marina Greens Drive.

C. Cardoza Avenue, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from Reservation Road to the end thereof, which is approximately six hundred feet north of Lakewood Drive.

D. Carmel Avenue, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from Del Monte Boulevard to approximately 300 feet west of Everett Drive;

2. The prima facie speed limit on Carmel Avenue from approximately 300 feet west of Everett Drive to Bostick Avenue shall be fifteen miles per hour when children are present;

3. Twenty-five miles per hour from Bostick Avenue to Salinas Avenue.

E. California Avenue, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from Reservation Road to Carmel Avenue;

2. Twenty-five miles per hour from Carmel Avenue to Reindollar Avenue;

3. Forty miles per hour from Reindollar Avenue to Imjin Parkway;

4. Thirty miles per hour from Imjin Parkway to 8th Street.

F. Crescent Avenue, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from Carmel Avenue to Reservation Road;

2. Twenty-five miles per hour from Reservation Road to the end thereof, which is approximately two hundred fifty feet north of Quebrada Del Mar.

G. Beach Road, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from Reservation Road to Del Monte Boulevard;

2. Twenty-five miles per hour from Del Monte Boulevard to De Forest Road;

3. The prima facie speed limit from Begonia Circle to Villa Circle shall be fifteen miles per hour when children are present.

H. 2nd Avenue, as follows:

1. Forty miles per hour from Divarty Street to 8th Street;

2. Thirty-five miles per hour from 8th Street to Imjin Parkway.

I. 3rd Avenue, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from 8th Street to Imjin Parkway.

J. 8th Street, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from 2nd Avenue to 3rd Avenue;

2. Thirty-five miles per hour from 5th Avenue/California Avenue to Inter- Garrison Road.

2 Ordinance No. 2025-

Page 3 ends

K. 9th Street, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from 1st Avenue to 2nd Avenue.

L. De Forest Road, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from Beach Road to Reservation Road.

M. Reindollar Avenue, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from Del Monte Boulevard to California Avenue;

2. Twenty-five miles per hour from California Avenue to Carmel Avenue.

N. Lake Drive, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from Palm Avenue to Reservation Road.

O. Palm Avenue, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from Lake Drive to Del Monte Boulevard.

P. Salinas Avenue, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from Carmel Avenue to Reservation Road.

Q. Paul Davis Drive, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from Healy Avenue to Marina Greens Drive.

R. Seacrest Avenue, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from Carmel Avenue to Reservation Road.

S. Sunset Avenue, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from Reindollar Avenue to Carmel Avenue.

T. Vaughan Avenue, as follows:

1. Twenty-five miles per hour from Reindollar Avenue to Carmel Avenue.

U. Crescent Street, as follows:

1. The prima facie speed limit from Patton Parkway to Reindollar Avenue shall be twenty-five miles per hour when children are present.

V. Patton Parkway, as follows:

1. The prima facie speed limit from End (Marina High School) to Crescent Street shall be twenty-five miles per hour when children are present;

2. Thirty-five miles per hour from Crescent Street to California Avenue.

W. Preston Drive, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from Abrams Drive to Imjin Parkway.

X. Abrams Drive, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from Preston Drive to Imjin Parkway (East).

2. Thirty miles per hour from Preston Drive to Imjin Parkway (West).

3 Ordinance No. 2025-

Page 4 ends

Y. Imjin Parkway, as follows:

1. Forty-five miles per hour from State Route 1 to California Avenue;

2. Fifty miles per hour from California Avenue to Reservation Road.

Z. Marina Heights Drive, as follows:

1. Thirty miles per hour from California Avenue to Imjin Parkway.”

SECTION 4. The prima facie speed limit for each portion of Reservation Road, Del Monte Boulevard, Cardoza Avenue, Carmel Avenue, California Avenue, Crescent Avenue, Beach Road, 2nd Avenue, 3rd Avenue, 8th Street, 9 th Street, De Forest Road, Reindollar Avenue, Lake Drive, Palm Avenue, Salinas Avenue, Paul Davis Drive, Seacrest Avenue, Sunset Avenue, Vaughan Avenue, Crescent Street, Patton Parkway, Preston Drive, Abrams Drive, Imjin Parkway , and Marina Heights Drive set forth in Section 3 hereof, shall be as set forth therein when signs are erected giving notice thereof.

SECTION 5 . Any provision of the Marina Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6 . The City Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, and section by section, and does hereby declare that the provisions of this ordinance are severable and, if for any reason any sentence, p aragraph or section of this ordinance shall be held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.

SECTION 7. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its final passage.

SECTION 8. Within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause it to be posted in the three (3) public places designated by resolution of the City Council.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Marina duly held on June 3, 2025, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting duly held on July 1, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

_____________________________
Bruce C. Delgado, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________
Anita Sharp, Deputy City Clerk
4 June 30, 2025 Item No:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting Marina City Council July 1, 2025

SUPPLEMENTAL TO ITEM 13(b)

CITY COUNCIL TO RECEIVE A STATUS UPDATE AND PROVIDE

ADDITIONAL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON ACTIVITIES RELATING TO LOCKE-PADDON PARK . THIS PRESENTATION IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER SEC. 15378 OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES.

REQUEST:

City Council to receive additional information relating to Locke-Paddon Park (LPP or the Park): 1) the 2004 Notice of Exemption (NOE) filed for Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District ’s (MPRPD) acquisition of Lot 43 (Isakson); and 2) MPRPD’s 2005 Master Plan.

ANALYSIS:

1. 2004 CEQA NOE
At the June 11 , 2025, MPRPD Real Estate Committee meeting there was discussion of 2004 CEQA Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) (EXHIBIT A) filed by MPRPD for the acquisition of Lot 43 of Locke - Paddon Park.

Briefly, CEQA, or the California Environmental Quality Act, is an environmental disclosure law that requires government agencies to think about any environmental consequences of their actions before acting. It is triggered whenever an action (1) may cause physical environmental change and (2) a government agency’s discretionary approval is involved. If triggered, a government agency must then determine if a project is exempt under the list of CEQA exemptions. If a project is not exempt, then further environmental review may be necessary.

Here, the NOE was filed for the act of acquiring the property by MPRPD, which MPRPD staff determined was exempt from further CEQA review because it planned , at the time of acquisition , “to preserve the land in its original condition for fish and wildlife conservation, habitat preservation, and access by establishing a public park to be publicly managed by a future management plan designed to keep the land in a natural condition and preserve open space.” The NOE does not govern what activities (existing or planned) may take place on Lot 43 . Rather any activities, which may cause physical environmental change and involve a government agency’s discretionary approval trigger further CEQA analysis. Because the Park is within the City’s land use jurisdiction, the City is the land use permitting authority. As such, any activities, whether proposed by the City or MPRPD, for Locke -Paddon Park must be reviewed against CEQA as well as applicable City policies, including the General Plan and the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) given the park is within the City’s local coastal zone boundary.

2. 2005 MPRPD Master Plan
Staff has been asked about the impact of the 2005 Master Plan for Locke -Paddon Park on existing (MLK, Oak Woodland, etc.) or proposed (Children’s Sensory Garden or Asian Community Garden) activities in the Park. Staff has reviewed the 2005 Master Plan, including the potential uses identified on the Final Master Plan map ( EXHIBIT B), for Locke-Paddon Park and does not believe that the 2005 Plan would preclude either existing (MLK, Oak Woodland, etc.) or proposed (Children’s Sensory Garden or Asian Community Garden) activities.

It does not appear based on a review of City records that the City Council formally adopted this guidance document as its own.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Council has allocated funding for the Cypress tree trimming as well as a portion of the expected cost to develop the Asian Community Garden . Funding for the other short - and long-term items has not yet been identified. Staff work involved in developing MOUs, leases, or other agreements will be funded by the City’s general fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This request for direction qualifies for a CEQA exemption per § 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines which allows for o rganizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

CONCLUSION:

Staff requests that the Council acknowledge the new information and recommendations provided regarding the CEQA NOE filed in 2004 and the 2005 Master Plan and reaffirm the tasks listed above and direct the City Manager to continue working with MPRPD staff to accomplish these goals.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Alyson Hunter, AICP
Planning Manager, Community Development Dept.

City of Marina

Reviewed/concur:

_________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

_________________________
René A. Ortega
City Attorney
City of Marina

EXHIBIT B
June 23, 2025 Item No: 13b

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Regular Meeting Marina City Council of July 1, 2025

CITY COUNCIL TO RECEIVE A STATUS UPDATE AND PROVIDE

ADDITIONAL DIRECTION TO STAFF ON ACTIVITIES RELATING TO LOCKE-PADDON PARK . THIS PRESENTATION IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PER SEC. 15378 OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES.

REQUEST:

City Council to receive a status update relating to Locke-Paddon Park ( LPP or the Park ), including receiving informational documents provided to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD) Real Estate Subcommittee meeting on June 11, 2025, and to request any additional direction to the City Manager to begin negotiating long - and short-term activities already authorized by the City Council.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council and MPRPD Board held a joint meeting on Tuesday, April 29, 2025, to hear a staff presentation on the history of the Park and the deed restrictions and development constraints known to be in effect on the subject parcels, and to receive public comment and brief Council/Board member comments on goals for Park maintenance and improvements moving forward.

On May 6, 2025, the City Council provided the following direction regarding short-term actions and activities (from the adopted meeting minutes):

1. Direct staff and the City Attorney to initiate a discussion with MPRPD staff and counsel to determine the appropriate instrument (lease, MOU, or other) needed to pursue the development of an approximately one (1) acre Asian Community Garden at the south end of Lot 43 and begin the work of creating a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application and EIR;

2. Direct staff to begin discussions with MPRPD staff on the process to trim the existing Cypress trees on Lots 42 and 43 (Isakson property) and along the south side of Seaside Circle (APN 033-121-010), as needed;

3. Direct City staff to begin working with MPRPD staff on a new maintenance agreement that defines roles and responsibilities between the parties;

4. Direct staff to request that MPRPD remove the residual radio tower infrastructure rem aining on APN -006 at its earliest opportunity; and

5. Coordinate with MPRPD to ensure that any existing or future improvements on MPRPD - owned property is appropriately documented including, but not limited to:
a. Existing MLK Jr. sculpture garden
b. Existing Oak woodland community garden including planted fruit trees (food forest) c. Existing garden shed
d. Existing and future decomposed granite pathways and interpretive panels e. Potential Asian Community Garden
f. Potential children’s sensory garden

At the same meeting, the Council also provided direction regarding the following long-term actions and activities:

1. Staff preparation of a comprehensive pond management/maintenance/restoration plan based on the following two (2) strategies:

a. A CEQA-exempt “Cutting the Green Tape” restoration-based management plan, or b. A larger-scale plan that would require an EIR and permitting by multiple agencies

2. Potential land swap to facilitate the management of lands based on each agencies’ mission and community goals.

On June 11, 2025, the Real Property/Land Use & Management Committee of the MPRPD Board held a public meeting to receive a staff report (EXHIBIT A)1 and presentation (EXHIBIT B)2 on the status of plans, agreements, and improvements at LPP. Councilmembers Biala and Visscher and Mayor Delgado were present. At this meeting, the Chair (Lee) of the Committee asked City representatives to convey to any Marina volunteer groups to cease activities until further notice. This request was included in a letter to the City Manager from Interim General Manager, Shuran Parker, dated June 20, 2025 , and is attached as EXHIBIT C.

ANALYSIS:

As part of the presentation to the Real Property/Land Use & Management Committee, MPRPD staff provided the information regarding the Park properties and ownership. The chart below reflects the information provided and is updated to reflect known restrictions based on available documentation.

Property Year Acquired Owner APNs Lot No. Acres Restrictions 2-acre 1973 City 033-121-004 N/A 1.9 None identified

Walton
Radio Parcel
1987 MPRPD 033-121-005-
006
40, 41, 42,
46, 47, 48
12 Easement in favor of Walton
Radio(grantor)

Per MPRPD, grant funding imposed
conditions: public recreation and
scenic preservation

Portion subject to incidental take
permit mitigation area
Austin 1987 City/MPRPD 033-132-002 45 1.8 Subject to Coastal Conservancy deed restrictions – open space, wildlife
habitat, and passive recreational use
MRWPCA 1987 City 033-132-003 44 2.0 Subject to Coastal Conservancy deed restrictions – open space, wildlife
habitat, and passive recreational use

Crivello 1991 MPRPD 033-121-101 Portion of
lots 40, 41,
and 42

1.8 None identified
Crivello
(Library)
2001 City 033-121-009 Portion of
lot 41 and
42 2.7 Subject to being developed as a
public facility, limited to an
auditorium, community center, class
room, community meeting room, or
library

Isakson 2004 MPRPD 033-121-002 43 6.5 None identified3

1 https://www.mprpd.org/files/4f23436c6/Item061125-4_LPWCPStatus.pdf 2 https://www.mprpd.org/files/e924bbc2f/RPLUM_CommitteePresentation_250611.pdf 3 Notice of Exemption (NOE) filed by MPRPD pursuant to CEQA for the acquisition of Lot 43 (Isakson) parcel exempting the acquisition from CEQA; further development of parcel remains subject to CEQA and the City’s local coastal zone requirements.

MPRPD has also requested a letter from the City stating the City’s position regarding various activities in the Park, including the City’s position and maintenance obligations on the following existing and proposed activities:

• Asian American Garden
• Oak Woodland Community Garden, including food forest
• MLK Jr. Sculpture Garden
• Children’s Sensory Garden

City staff requests Council direction regarding these activities as well as coordinating with MPRPD on any necessary amendment to the 2005 Master Plan for the Park.

Additionally, City staff has been in discussion with the Sierra Club regarding the Settlement Agreement between the City and the Sierra Club in 1985 which require s “the City will neither adopt nor file Negative Declarations, but shall instead require Environmental Impact Reports on all future projects except those projects otherwise categorically exempt from the EIR requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act I the Coastal Zone within the Cit of Marina”.

Since the original Settlement Agreement, the Sierra Club has entered into five separate Addendums with the City to the Settlement Agreement that have allowed the C ity to provide a Negative Declaration for the CEQA review of certain warranted projects in the Coastal Zone . These projects have included the Library at Locke-Paddon Park, cell tower sites in the Marina Landing Shopping Center and a sidewalk from Highway 1 to Marina Dunes State Park.

The Sierra Club is willing to enter into a nother Addendum to the Settlement Agreement exempting the City from the Environmental Impact Review requirements and permit the approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit and Design Approval and Negative Declarations that would include the following projects – some already completed, some currently being developed and others future projects: Children’s Sensory Garden; Oak Woodland Community Garden; MLK Jr. Sculpture Garden; and a hybrid Coastal Passive Garden which fits in the context of the proposed Asian American Garden.

FISCAL IMPACT:

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

CONCLUSION:

Staff requests that the Council reaffirm the tasks listed above and direct the City Manager to continue working with MPRPD staff to accomplish these goals.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Alyson Hunter, AICP
Planning Manager, Community Development Dept.

City of Marina

REVIEW/CONCUR

Layne Long
City Manager
Cit of Marina
Admin. Office (831) 372-3196 yE-mail: [email protected] ywww.mprpd.org yFax (831) 372-3197

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Jeffrey Markham – Ward 1
[email protected]
Marina, northern Ft. Ord
Shane Anderson – Ward 2
[email protected]
Seaside, northern Sand City,
southern Ft. Ord
Kevin Raskoff –W a r d 3
[email protected]
Monterey, southwest Seaside,
southern Sand City, Del Rey Oaks
Kathleen Lee –W a r d 4
[email protected]
Pacific Grove, New Monterey,
northern Pebble Beach
Monta Potter – Ward 5
[email protected]
Carmel, Carmel Valley,
Big Sur, southern Pebble Beach

INTERIM GENERAL MANAGER
Shuran Parker
[email protected]
Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
P.O. Box 223340 yCarmel, California 93922 l 4860 Carmel Valley Road yCarmel, California 93923 June 20, 2025
Layne Long, City Manager
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Re: Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park
Dear Mr. Long,
I wanted to thank you for the April 29 meeting, which was the first of what I hope will be several, joint meetings between the City of Marina (City) and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (District), to discuss the future of Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park and our two agencies’ interests, along with the public’s desired use, for the park. Following that initial meeting, we were able to briefly discuss next steps with the District Board of Directors (Board) to gather additional information on their vision for the park and the best path forward for future meetings.

Because of the complexities surrounding the park’s acquisitions, land ownership, sensitive habitat and potential regulatory complexities, the District Board has directed staff to temporarily cease new projects and activities related to new activities in the park such as the issuance of special use permits. This cessation is necessary until the District can complete review of projects already undertaken at the park without the District’s express consent or requisite permitting, as well as until discussions regarding a potential new maintenance agreement with the City conclude. The District is directing the City to comply with these mandates on parcels owned by the District until further notice. The Board has assigned its Real Property/Land Use & Management Committee to meet and discuss potential uses and options for the park. A meeting of that Committee took place on June 11 (with Mayor Delgado and Councilmembers Biala and Visscher also in attendance), where we reviewed some of the historical information discussed on April 29, along with other information that will help inform the District’s next joint meeting with the City.

In the meantime, I am looking forward to our July 2 meeting, to discuss next steps and plans for our next joint meeting. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions before then.

Sincerely,
Shuran Parker
Interim General Manager

EXHIBIT A
1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

BOARD REPORT

DATE: June 11, 2025
TO: Real Property / Land Use Management Committee
FROM: Jake Smith, Planning & Conservation Program Manager REVIEWED BY: Shuran Parker, Interim General Manager
SUBJECT: Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park

SUMMARY
This report provides the Real Property and Land Use Management Committee with an overview of Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park’s multi-agency acquisition history, long-standing management agreements, evolving community-led projects, and current site conditions. It is intended to support Committee discussion on how MPRPD and the City of Marina can clarify long-term management responsibilities, address deferred maintenance and past obligations, and develop a sustainable framework for ecological stewardship, public access, and future park improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

FUNDING SOURCE
Not applicable

FUNDING BALANCE
Not applicable

2 DISCUSSION
Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park (Park) is a 29-acre park located in the City of Marina. It was acquired, developed, and managed through a joint partnership between the City of Marina (City) and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD).

Collaborative work on the Park began shortly after the City completed the Marina Wetlands Enhancement Plan (Wetlands Enhancement Plan) in 1986 (ATTACHMENT 1), when the City requested MPRPD's assistance in acquiring land to protect it from development and create a public park consistent with the Wetlands Enhancement Plan.

In response, MPRPD adopted the Wetlands Enhancement Plan and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City outlining that MPRPD would assist with land acquisition and seek grant funding for creation of the Park, while the City would assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of the Park and its improvements (ATTACHMENT 2). This was followed in 1987 by a 25-year lease agreement (Lease), in which MPRPD leased its land to the City for $1.00 (ATTACHMENT 3). The Lease formalized all necessary approvals for the City to serve as the Park’s manager, as originally envisioned in the MOU.

Park Properties and Ownership
Table 1. Summary of Property Ownership within Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park.

Property Year
Acquired
Owner APNs Acreage
2-acre 1973 City 033-121-004 1.9
Walton Radio 1987 MPRPD 033-121-005, -
006
12 Austin 1987 City/MPRPD 033-132-002 1.8
MRWPCA 1987 City 033-132-003 2
Crivello 1991 MPRPD 033-121-101 1.8
Crivello
(Library)
2001 City 033-121-009 2.7
Isakson 2004 MPRPD 033-121-002 6.5

3 Figure 1. Locke Paddon Wetland Community Park map showing property APNs with MPRPD owned properties shown in green.
2-acre City Parcel (1973)
The City acquired an approximately 2-acre parcel (APN 033-121-004) in the Park’s northwestern corner in 1973, which served as the seed parcel for the Park’s formation.

Walton Radio Parcels (1987):

MPRPD acquired these parcels (APNs 033-132-005 and -006) using grant funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with the condition that they be maintained in perpetuity for public recreation and scenic preservation. A retained easement allowed existing radio facilities to remain until decommissioned, at which point the easement could be extinguished and the remaining infrastructure removed.

Austin and MRWPCA Parcels (1987):

These parcels were jointly acquired by MPRPD and the City using State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) grant funds. Deed restrictions limit their use to open space, habitat protection, and passive recreation. MPRPD and the City each hold a 50% interest in the Austin parcel (APN 033-132-002), while the MRWPCA parcel (APN 033-132-003) is solely owned by the City.

4 Crivello Property (1991):

MPRPD purchased this property for approximately $900,000 using a combination of its General Fund and City contributions. The acquisition followed an agreement reflecting MPRPD’s goal to “purchase and preserve open space near Locke-Paddon Wetlands” and the City’s goal to “develop a public facility, such as a library or other community purpose.” The City was granted a 10-year option to purchase up to three acres for civic use. In 2001, it exercised this option, acquiring 2.7 acres (APN 033-121-009) for the Marina Branch Library. The remaining 1.8 acres (APN 033-132-002) remained under MPRPD ownership for Park uses.

Isakson Property (2004):

The final private parcel acquisition that completed the Parks footprint. MPRPD purchased the property (APN 033-121-002) for approximately $900,000 to preserve it for fish and wildlife habitat, passive recreation, and open space management. MPRPD subsequently funded the demolition of residential and agricultural structures to enhance the open space character.

Park Use and Management Plans
1987 Wetland Enhancement Plan
As outlined in the MOU and Lease, the Park’s development was guided by the 1987 Wetlands Enhancement Plan (ATTACHMENT 1), which emphasized wetland preservation, removal of invasive species, restoration of native habitat, and development of passive recreational facilities designed to require only periodic maintenance. Although the Park was estimated to be capable of accommodating up to 187 visitors, facilities were intentionally programmed to support no more than 60 users at any given time, preserving space for enhanced habitat and reducing wildlife disturbance. Facilities such as the restroom and amphitheater were designed to be “subdued and sympathetic with the site,” constructed of “durable material sympathetic to the habitat such as heavy stone or timber,” and sited more built-out improvements like the parking lot to be clustered in the northeast corner to distance them from the wetland pond.
1994 Coastal Wetland/Vernal Pond Management Plan
While the Wetlands Enhancement Plan helped guide land use and broader management goals for the Park, the City of Marina also developed a Coastal Wetland/Vernal Pond Management Plan in 1994 (ATTACHMENT 4) part of its LCP revision process that was intended to guide future policies for wetland protection, restoration, and public use within city limits. MPRPD actively participated in the Technical Advisory Committee, endorsed the final document, and committed to support implementation of its key policies—namely, habitat protection, restoration, low -impact public access, and long-term vegetation management. MPRPD also provided funding 5 for plan implementation focused on maintaining wetland habitat protection, passive recreation improvements, and other habitat management enhancement actions. 2005 Locke Paddon Wetland Community Park Master Plan
Following the acquisition of the Isakson Property in 2004, the last privately held parcel within Park, MPRPD and the City of Marina jointly funded the development of a revised Master Plan (ATTACHMENT 5). The updated plan sought to integrate the City’s proposed library facility and the Isakson property into the park’s long-term vision.

While the Master Plan accommodated the future library, it largely followed the design principles of the 1987 Wetlands Enhancement Plan and reaffirmed that the primary intent for most of the Park was to maintain a naturalistic character that complements the existing pond, native vegetation, and passive recreational amenities, acknowledging that the City’s 1994 a comprehensive Vernal Pond Management Plan “…reaffirmed the unique wetland nature of the park as wildlife habitat.” and emphasizing the removal of non-native plant species and the management and expansion of native vegetation to improve both habitat quality and the park’s overall aesthetics. Although the Mater Plan left the majority of the property, including most of the former Isakson parcel, as passive open space free from new structures, it also proposed several more intensive built features more closely clustered around the proposed Library, its parking lot, and Seaside Avenue. These included a head pond, and an artificial meandering stream designed to improve circulation and maintain pond water levels and quality, an elevated pedestrian bridge over Del Monte Boulevard connecting to Vince DiMaggio Park, a “tot lot” playground, and courts for horseshoes, volleyball, and bocce ball. During the plan’s review in 2005, MPRPD’s Board expressed concerns about the cost and complexity of constructing and maintaining these more complicated built-out improvements.

Ultimately, while MPRPD funded the installation of a playground structure within the City’s library property and worked with the City to fund and address vegetation overgrowth and reclaim and refurbish Park improvements that were in a state of decline and disrepair at the time of the plan’s development, none of the other proposed built features were constructed in the Park.
2012 Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park Implementation Plan The Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park Implementation Plan (ATTACHMENT 6) was commissioned by the City of Marina and supported by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District to develop revised best practices for improving and maintaining the health of the wetland at the park. While the plan proposed a robust strategy for the management and enhancement of the pond, it was reportedly never implemented due to lack of funding.

Recent Notable Projects
Holiday Inn ITP Mitigation Commitments 2001
6 In 2001, MPRPD was approached by the developer of the Holiday Inn Express project and agreed to allow a portion of the Park to restored as mitigation for the development project finding it this consistent with both the original Marina Wetlands Enhancement Plan and the 1994 Coastal Vernal Ponds Management Plan and supported the relocation of state protected Sand Gilia seed stock to the Park, the enhancement and protection of federally protected Monterey spine flower populations, and creation of coastal scrub habitat within a 3.55 acre area of the Park. In addition to allowing mitigation work to occur at the park, MPRPD committed to several other actions as a component of the mitigation, including: merging all parcels within the park into a single parcel, rezoning the property as “open space,” irrevocably dedicating the park as open space under the California Public Resources Code, recording a permanent deed restriction over the mitigation area, and posting signage identifying the mitigation area as an "Endangered Species Mitigation Plant Preserve."
After reviewing MPRPD and City records, it appears the mitigation project was only partially completed, the required exclusion fencing and signage is no longer present, and MPRPD did not finalize the parcel merger, record the deed restriction, or formally dedicate the property. After speaking with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding the status of the mitigation project, CDFW stated that it considered the site a protected mitigation area, is assuming that Sand Gilia are present, and are requesting that MPRPD follow through with the commitments outlined in its 2001 letter (ATTACHMENT 7).

Citizens For Sustainable Marina Projects
In 2015, volunteers from Citizens for Sustainable Marina (C4SM) begin manually watering approximately 30 oak trees that were originally installed by MPRPD in 2013 on the former Isakson property but were in poor health due to lack of water. In response, the City of Marina installed a new water line to the oak woodland area around 2017, and C4SM raised funding from MC Gives to construct a garden shed at the site to support stewardship of the oak plantings and additional native planting around the oak woodland site.

In 2020, C4SM received approval from MPRPD management to relocate raised garden beds from Fort Ord to the Oak Woodland site. Shortly after, MPRPD helped purchase materials for C4SM to expand the garden beds in the oak woodland, resulting in the installation of 12 raised garden beds. By 2023, the area was increasingly referred to as the “Oak Woodland Community Garden,” reflecting the evolving perception of the oak woodland project area as a community garden space due to the garden bed improvements. That year, C4SM obtained a Special Use Permit from MPRPD to construct four additional raised garden beds, 230 feet of decomposed granite pathway, and three sitting benches throughout the oak woodland (ATTACHMENT 8). C4SM’s request included a proposed term of up to 10 years and described the improvements as “non-permanent, easy to modify or remove.” MPRPD’s The special use permit was issued to C4SM conditioned upon on the “development of a simple site maintenance 7 plan and agreement with C4SM and the City of Marina to ensure that these improvements are adequately maintained after they are constructed.” C4SM volunteers continue to regularly use and steward the site and have incrementally expanded the footprint of their work areas. This includes the planting of fruit trees along the periphery of the original oak woodland and native species planting within the 3.55- acre Holiday Inn Mitigation Area site. While some MPRPD staff have been generally aware of these activities, no formal maintenance plan or agreement with C4SM or the City of Marina has been developed or executed for the site that outline the scope of the allowed activities amongst the parties.

Dr. Marin Luther King Jr Statue Plaza
In April 2023, MPRPD issued a 25-year encroachment permit to the City of Marina for the construction of a statue plaza honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (ATTACHMENT 9) The MLK Plaza was constructed in a location outlined in the 2005 Master Plan for built facilities, including a constructed playground and ADA accessible parking stalls. The encroachment permit outlined that the City will be responsible for all site maintenance and repair activities and the site will be the subject of an updated park management MOU that would be developed in collaboration with the City and executed by both parties by November 2023. The site is currently maintained by the City of Marina, but no management MOU has been developed or agreed to.

Asian Community Garden
The City of Marina and members of the community, notably the group Asian Community of Marina (ACOM), have expressed interest in incorporating a landscaped Asian Garden within the Park. In October 2024, the MPRPD Board held a public meeting to discuss potential improvements at the Park, including the Asian Garden proposal. During that meeting, the Board requested additional information regarding the specifics of the proposal.

At a joint Board meeting in April 2025, a conceptual site plan for an Asian Community Garden was shared (ATTACHMENT 10). The plan proposed locating the garden on MPRPD property within the area of the former Isakson property, which was identified as a “large open greensward” in the 2005 Master Plan. The Garden Concept outlined a garden that would include a mixture of native and non-native ornamental species—such as bamboo, Chinese pistache, ginkgo, plum trees, and Monterey cypress—as well as a constructed pavilion and meandering walking path with bridges crossing a constructed stream leading to a reflection pond, separate from the Park’s existing pond. MPRPD staff’s understanding is that the City is interested in advancing the Asian Garden as a City led project and has budgeted funding to facilitate a public planning process to determine the feasibility, siting, conceptual design, and requirements to permit, construct and maintain the proposed improvement.

Current Conditions at the Park
8 Today, the Park is predominantly in another cycle of decline. Aging infrastructure, including restrooms, picnic areas, trails, and interpretive areas has further deteriorated.

In addition, vegetation at the Park is generally viewed as overgrown and unmaintained, obstructing park views, including views of the pond, and providing space for human encampments in high brush and cover areas. Although, areas such as the Oak Woodland and C4SM Community garden bed area are generally seen as more inviting and better maintained than other portions of the Park, a 2024 community survey found that while residents valued the Park, most rated its current condition as poor or very poor, concluding that the Park remains a valuable asset, but one in need of consistent maintenance, and renewed investment (ATTACHMENT 11).

Management and Ownership of the Park
Action is required by both the City and MPRPD to ensure maintenance and alignment with adopted plans and agreements. Although the original collaboration anticipated long-term City management, ongoing lapses in regular upkeep raise concerns about capacity. Meanwhile, new projects continue to be advanced that could strain already limited resources.

Both agencies have allocated funds for updated management planning and maintenance. Staff recommend continuing to review property records and completing resource surveys while developing updated interim management guidelines and schedules focused on:
• Reestablishing/increasing routine maintenance of existing public facilities • Protecting sensitive resources
• Basic vegetation management
• Clarifying the scope and maintenance responsibilities for recent projects (e.g., MLK Plaza, Oak Woodland)
This work should run parallel to the development of a comprehensive Park management plan addressing more complicated and long-term management activities that will inform a detailed long range Park maintenance program, including associated costs for activities such as:
• Long-term natural resource management
• Wetland and aquatic vegetation control
• Invasive species removal and habitat restoration
• Removal of derelict structures (e.g., former Walton radio towers) • Replacement or retrofit of existing park facilities
Because many of these activities require state or federal approvals, staff recommend that projects be scoped to qualify for permit streamlining programs for voluntary restoration projects to expedite permit delivery and reduce costly mitigation requirements otherwise required for projects.
9 The comprehensive Park management plan should also identify zones of the park that are appropriate for more built out improvements, such as the proposed Asian Garden Concept, identifying where more active or developed recreational improvements can be factored into larger park use and management planning, while also acknowledging those improvements would likely require a separate and more complicated environmental review, approval, and fundraising process.

Recognizing that the original Lease is now expired and that all lands outlined in the original Wetland Enhancement Plan have now been acquired, this is an opportunity to reevaluate if MPRPD and the City wish to enter into another Lease, License, or other form of agreement, or to potentially consider transfer of MPRPD’s property to the City subject to terms and conditions that ensure that the Park’s conservation values are protected and park amenities are maintained, while also formalizing the City’s role as the Parks long term manager.

What is central to all this work is seeking confirmation that City and MPRPD roles in the original MOU are still understood and confirming that MPRPD and the City are able to provide sufficient resources for the management and maintenance of existing Park amenities and resources management backlogs.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommend that the Committee provide staff with feedback on proposed next steps regarding improving conditions of the Park.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 1987 Wetlands Enhancement Plan

2. City of Marina / MPRPD Memorandum of Understanding

3. City / MPRPD Lease Agreement

4. 1994 Coastal Wetland/Vernal Pond Management Plan

5. 2005 LPWCP Master Plan

6. 2012 LPWCP Implementation Plan

7. 2001 Holiday Inn Mitigation Commitment Letter

8. 2023 MLK Statue Plaza Encroachment Permit

9. 2023 C4SM Special Use Permit

10. 2025 Asian Community Garden Concept

11. 2024 LPWCP Marina Resident’s Report
AGENDA ITEM 4A
Locke Paddon Wetland Community Park
Presenters: Jake Smith: Planning & Conservation Program Manager June 11, 2025
Real Property / Land Use Management Committee Meeting

BACKGROUND

VISION & MOU

BACKGROUND
Lease

Monterey Peninsula
Regional Park District

BACKGROUND
Park Properties & Ownership
Property Year
Acquired
Owner APNs Acres
2-acre 1973 City 033-121-004 1.9
Walton Radio 1987 MPRPD 033-121-005, -
006
12 Austin 1987 City/MPRPD 033-132-002 1.8
MRWPCA 1987 City 033-132-003 2
Crivello 1991 MPRPD 033-121-101 1.8
Crivello (Library) 2001 City 033-121-009 2.7
Isakson 2004 MPRPD 033-121-002 6.5

DRAFT

BACKGROUND
1987 Wetlands Enhancement Plan

BACKGROUND
1994 Coastal Vernal Pond Comprehensive Management Plan

BACKGROUND
2005 Master Plan

BACKGROUND
2012 LPWCP Management Implementation Plan

BACKGROUND
Holiday Inn Mitigation Area
DRAFT

BACKGROUND
C4SM Community Garden Beds
DRAFT
Permitted C4SM Garden Bed Site Plan (2023)

BACKGROUND
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Statue Plaza
DRAFT

BACKGROUND
Asian American Garden Concept
DRAFT

BACKGROUND
Current Park Conditions
The park is predominantly in another cycle of decline.  Current condition as poor or very poor, concluding that the Park remains a valuable asset, but one in need of consistent maintenance, and renewed investment
 Aging infrastructure, including restrooms, picnic areas, trails, and interpretive areas has further deteriorated
 Vegetation at the Park is generally viewed as overgrown and unmaintained, obstructing park views, including views of the pond.
 Space for human encampments in high brush and cover areas creating public safety concerns.  Desire for park clean up and renewed trail and facility maintenance.

KEY THEMES
Monterey Peninsula
Regional Park District
Expired Agreements: Need to resolve ownership/maintenance roles now that the original lease has lapsed.
Inconsistent Oversight: Projects have proceeded without clear maintenance or land use agreements.
Unmet Management & Legal Commitments: Holiday Inn mitigation area needs follow-through to satisfy CDFW requirements.
Limited Maintenance Funding/Capacity: Creating tension between new project proposals that wil create new obligations and funding maintenance of existing facilities and resources.

POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS
Monterey Peninsula
Regional Park District
 Short-Term: Develop interim management guidelines and maintenance schedules focused on:
 Infrastructure repair
 Vegetation control
 Resource protection
 Defining roles/responsibilities and scope of activities for park management  Long-Term: Create a comprehensive Park Management Plan addressing:
 Habitat restoration
 Invasive species control
 Capital upgrades
 Appropriate siting/locations for future built projects  Explore options for: New MOU, lease, or property transfer to the City with conditions protecting conservation and passive rec reational values.

Thank You
Monterey Peninsula
Regional Park District
Questions?
April 25, 2025 Agenda Item No. 13c
Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting
Of the Marina City Council of July1, 2025
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADDING “CALL UP” MEASURES TO
SECTION 17.70 (APPEALS) OF THE MARINA MUNICIPAL CODE
(MMC), THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PERSUANT TO SECTION 1506l (b)(3)
OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council provide the following direction to staff:

1. Amend Marina Municipal Code (MMC) Title 17, Section 17.70 relating to Appeals as directed; and

2. Find this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

BACKGROUND
At its March 4, 2025, public hearing on MMC amendments relating to appeals, permit extensions and effective dates, and Community Development Department (CDD) Director’s discretion to elevate certain administrative actions to the Planning Commission, the City Council requested that staff return with some language for consideration of a dding a “Call Up” provision to the MMC.

A “Call Up” is similar to the appeal of any CDD Director (Director) or Planning Commission decision, but it is an action by the City Council itself rather than an action of an aggrieved individual. As such, there is no appeal fee required. However, there are typically explicit timeframes and majority or other stated number of Councilmembers needed to support the “Call Up” in most ordinances.

ANALYSIS
After reviewing several other jurisdictions’ ordinances (linked below 1 and referenced herein as Exhibit A), staff has identified several pros and cons associated with including these provisions in the MMC.

A potential benefit to Council Call Up is that it can provide an additional opportunity for residents or parties affected by a Planning Commission or Director decision to communicate their concerns to the Council without paying the appeal fee or having to provide documentation showing that an error or abuse of discretion by the Commission occurred or that the PC decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Thus, a number of Council members (the number would be specified in the ordinance) may wish to Call Up an item based on community influence or their own individual opinion that is contrary to the action of the Commission. 1 City of Pacific Grove PGMC 23.74.040
City of Monterey https://monterey.municipal.codes/Code/38-209 City of East Palo Alto Title 18, Sec 18.116.030 pg. 8-29 1 A potential consequence of the Call Up provision is that the Council could intentionally or unintentionally create a scenario in which the Planning Commission or Director lose the inherent authority vested in them through implementation of the Marina Municipal Code (MMC). If aggrieved neighbors to a project can convince the required number of Councilmembers through individual lobbying to Call Up an item already approved (or disapproved) by the Planning Commission or Director, it removes a layer of confidence to the applicant as well as those who made the original decision.

There is a lso potential for abuse of this provision if a number of Councilmembers do not have confidence in the Planning Commission or Director. If there is a lack of confidence, the Council task should be to engage in a more robust recruitment for Planning Commission members rather than overriding the Commission’s authority by calling up decisions.

Should the Council direct staff to prepare a draft Call Up ordinance, the following information should be provided to staff as part of the current discussion:

1. How many Councilmembers does it take to Call Up an item ? Some local ordinances allow one (1) member , others require just less than a quorum (2 members for a 5 - member Council, 3 members for a 7 -member Council) , and some require a majority vote.

2. What is the deadline for Council Call Up? Some municipalities allow for a specified number of days from the action. For example, within 15 business days of the Planning Commission’s action. Others follow the standard appeal period (10 business days).

Others require that a Call-Up occur at a regular Council meeting within a specified time period. Several of these create timing issues and require careful consideration to ensure that an applicant’s due process rights are considered.

3. Should there be a standard that applies for calling up or reviewing a decision? For example, some jurisdictions state that the basis for a call up shall be “that the determination affects, impacts, or deals with matters of general policy in the City, or may have a significant environmental, economic, or physical impact on a City facility or service.”

As with all ordinance amendments, the City Attorney will review the details of Council’s direction and the draft ordinance prior to Council consideration.

Note: This provision only appl ies to decisions made by review authorities covered by Title 17 ; the other Commissions and subcommittees do not have quasi -judicial or legislative authority ; i.e., either the CDD Director or the Planning Commission.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

2 CONCLUSION
This request is submitted for City Council consideration and direction.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________
Alyson Hunter, AICP
Planning Services Manager
City of Marina

REVIEWED/CONCUR:

____________________________
Guido Persicone, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Marina

____________________________
Layne Long
City Manager
City of Marina

3 Exhibit A

City of Pacific Grove, Municipal Code Chapter 23.74 - Appeals and Call-Ups Sections:

23.74.010 Purpose.

23.74.020 Appeal subjects and appeal authority.

23.74.030 Filing of appeals.

23.74.040 Call-up authority and time limits.

23.74.050 Processing of appeals and call-ups.

23.74.010 Purpose.

Determinations or actions of the chief planner, zoning administrator, site plan review committee, architectural review board, or planning commission may be appealed or called up as provided by this chapter. [Ord. 11-001 § 2, 2011].

23.74.020 Appeal subjects and appeal authority.

Determinations and actions that may be appealed, and the authority to act upon an appeal, shall be as follows:
(a) Staff Determinations. The following determinations and actions of the chief planner and department staff may be appealed to the planning commission and then to the council, except as provided in subsection (a)(5) of this section:
(1) Counter review and determinations, pursuant to PGMC 23.70.020. (2) Determinations on the meaning or applicability of these regulations that are believed to be in error, and cannot be resolved with staff.
(3) Any determination that a permit application or information submitted with the application is incomplete, in compliance with state law (Government Code Section 65943). (4) Any enforcement action in compliance with Chapter 23.88 PGMC (Enforcement). (5) Determinations of the city manager, pursuant to PGMC 23.04.040(a), but such an appeal shall be heard by the council only.
(b) Decisions of Review Authorities. Appeal authorities are identified in Table 23.70.012-1.

Generally, decisions of the zoning administrator, site plan review committee, architectural review board, and historic resources committee may be appealed to the planning commission, and decisions of the planning commission may be appealed to the council. When a single project requires two or more permit applications, or where final action on an application is subject to deadlines which cannot reasonably be satisfied if an application is subject to multiple appeals, any appeal of the project shall go to the higher-level appeal authority among those permits. The decision of the council shall be final. [Ord. 20-001 § 2 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 11-001 § 2, 2011].

4 23.74.030 Filing of appeals.
(a) Who May File an Appeal. An appeal may be filed by:
(1) Any person affected by an administrative determination or action by the department, as described in PGMC 23.74.020(a).
(2) In the case of a community development permit or hearing decision described in PGMC 23.74.020(b), by anyone who, in person or through an authorized representative, appeared at a public hearing in connection with the decision being appealed, or who otherwise informed the city in writing of the nature of their concerns before the hearing. (b) Timing and Form of Appeal. All appeals shall be submitted in writing on a city application and shall specifically state the pertinent facts of the case and the basis for the appeal. (1) Appeals shall be filed in the community development department or, in the case of appeals of planning commission actions, in the office of the city clerk, within 10 days following the final date of the determination or action being appealed; provided, that the time for appeal may be shortened to five days by the decision-maker whose decision is subject to appeal where final action on an application is subject to deadlines that cannot reasonably be satisfied if there is a longer appeal period. (2) Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee set by the city’s adopted schedule of fees, which is available in the community development department and on the city’s website.
(c) Scope of Appeals. An appeal of a decision on a community development permit listed in Table 23.70.012-1 shall be limited to issues raised at the public hearing, or in writing before the hearing, or information that was not generally known at the time of the decision that is being appealed. [Ord. 20-001 § 2 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 11-001 § 2, 2011].

23.74.040 Call-up authority and time limits.
(a) The council may call up for review any action or decision of the planning commission or any other review authority, and make its own decision on the action or matter. The architectural review board and planning commission have the authority to call up certain actions or decisions of any review body for which they are the appeal authority, in accordance with Table 23.70.012-

1. (b) The request to call up any action or decision shall be made during the portion of the regular meeting agenda during which council announcements or general non-agenda comments are allowed by members of that board, commission or council. No separate agenda item shall be required to enable a call-up request.
(c) Notwithstanding any time limits otherwise prescribed in this code for appeal, the call-up authority shall always have until its next regularly scheduled meeting provided it convenes within 21 calendar days following the final date of the determination or action that is subject to the call-up review. If a regular or special meeting is not convened within 21 calendar days following the final date of determination, the right of call-up shall lapse. 5 (d) In the case of the council, planning commission, or architectural review board, the request of three members shall suffice to call up an action or matter for review. At the time a matter or action is called for review, each member stating a request for review may make a brief statement of reasons for his or her call-up request. [Ord. 16-022 § 2, 2016; Ord. 11-001 § 2, 2011].

23.74.050 Processing of appeals and call-ups.
(a) Scheduling of Hearing. After an appeal or call-up for review has been received, in compliance with PGMC 23.74.030 and 23.74.040, the matter shall be placed on the next available agenda of the appeal authority or body calling up the item. (b) Notification of Applicant. Within one business day of receipt of an appeal or decision to call up a matter, staff shall attempt to notify the applicant. (c) Joining an Appeal. Only those persons who file an appeal within the time limit established by PGMC 23.74.030(b) shall be considered appellants. Any person who wishes to join an appeal shall follow the same procedures for an appellant in compliance with PGMC 23.74.030(b). No person shall be allowed to join an appeal after the expiration of the time limit for appeals. (d) Action and Findings. The appeal authority shall conduct a de novo public hearing in compliance with Chapter 23.86 PGMC (Public Meeting and Hearing Procedures). At the hearing, the appeal authority may consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal or call-up, in addition to the specific grounds identified in the appeal. (1) The appeal authority may affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action, decision, or determination that is the subject of the appeal or call-up, based upon findings of fact about the particular case. The findings shall identify the reasons for the action on the appeal or call-up, and verify the compliance or non-compliance of the subject of the appeal or call-up with these regulations. Prior to approving a permit or other action, the applicable findings in Chapter 23.70 PGMC (Community Development Permit Review Authorities and Procedures) shall be made.
(2) When reviewing a decision on a community development permit, the appeal authority may adopt additional conditions of approval that may address other issues or concerns than the subject of the appeal or call-up.
(e) Effective Date of Appeal or Call-Up Decisions. A decision by any appeal authority other than the council is effective on the eleventh day after the decision, if no appeal to the decision has been filed, or until the next regularly scheduled meeting, of any body with call-up authority, whichever date is later. Because a decision by the council is final, it is effective as of the date of the decision, unless the council specifies an alternative date. (f) Appeal Authority Also Refers to Call-Ups. All references to appeal authority in this section shall include the body calling up a matter for review.
_________________________________________________________________

6 City of Monterey, Municipal Code Section 38-209 - Appeal by City Councilmember or City Manager; Review of Projects Requiring Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Any City Councilmember or the City Manager may appeal a subordinate decision to the City Council for review on the basis that the determination affects, impacts, or deals with matters of general policy in the City, or may have a significant environmental, economic, or physical impact on a City facility or service. The general procedures of this article shall apply, insofar as practical. However, there shall be no fee for such an appeal.

Any approved project which required certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the Planning Commission shall be referred to the City Council for review at its next regular meeting. The City Council may elect to take no action, making the decision of the Planning Commission final, or, upon the request of any Councilmember, set the matter for hearing as an appeal, which shall be heard and determined in the same manner as other appeals taken pursuant to this article.
_____________________________________________________________________

City of East Palo Alto, Municipal Code Section 18.116.030 – Calls for Review

A. Council Review.

1. Council. The Council may call for a review of any determination or decision rendered by the staff, the Director or the Commission.

2. Majority Vote Required. A review may only be commenced by the affirmative vote of the majority of the members present.

B. Process for Calling for a Review.

1. Initiation by Council Members.
a. One or more Council members may initiate a call for review of a determination or decision by filing a written request with the City Clerk before the effective date of the action, generally 15 days following the date of the determination or decision.
b. The Council may call directly for the review of a Director determination or decision or refer the matter to the Commission to review and take action or provide a written recommendation to the Council.

2. Consideration. The Commission or Council, as applicable, shall consider the matter at its next available regularly scheduled meeting.

3. Request for Transcript. If the Commission or Council requests a transcript for use at the review hearing, a transcript shall be prepared and a copy shall be made available for inspection by any interested party. Fees shall be collected from applicants to create transcripts. Creation of a transcript may delay the scheduling of a hearing.

4. Notice to Applicant. If the decision of a discretionary application is being reviewed, the applicant shall be informed of the aspects of the application and the determination or decision to be considered.

5. Effect of Call for Review.
a. A call for review shall stay the effective date of a determination or decision until the Review Authority can make a decision.
7 b. The timely filing of a call for review does not extend the time in which an appeal of a determination or decision shall be filed.

6. Filing of an Appeal Pending a Call for Review.
a. Right to File an Appeal. Any person may file a timely appeal even though a call for review has been filed.
b. Effect of Filing an Appeal. The filing of the appeal serves to protect the rights of the appellant(s).

7. Notice and Public Hearing.
a. A review hearing shall be a public hearing if the original determination or decision required a public hearing.
b. Notice of the public hearing shall be the same as for the original determination or decision.

8. Fees Not Required. Fees shall not be required in conjunction with the filing of a call for review by a member of Council.

C. Concurrent Commission Recommendations. When the Commission makes a recommendation to the Council on a legislative matter, any concurrent companion decision(s) by the Commission on an application concerning in whole or in part the same parcel(s) shall also be deemed to be timely called up for review by the Council. 8

Marina City CouncilJuly 1, 2025

Marina City Council
July 1, 2025